Andries Coetzee, left, and his partner Gary Woodall stand outside of their home in Ann Arbor on Friday. Woodall may lose his health care coverage if the bill proposing the elimination of domestic partner benefits passes.

Angela J. Cesere | AnnArbor.com

Andries Coetzee has already started looking for a new job.

The University of Michigan linguistics professor is afraid he’s going to lose benefit allowances for his domestic partner of seven years, who is in remission after an exhausting battle with soft tissue sarcoma, a rare type of cancer.

A recurrence is an all-too-real risk, and good health care is essential, argues Coetzee, who has been with partner Gary Woodall for seven years.

But domestic partner benefits for state employees —including staff at Michigan’s 15 public universities— are in jeopardy due to a bill that seeks to save approximately $8 million a year by eliminating the benefits. House bill 4770 was approved by the Michigan House of Representatives in September in a 64-44 vote and is currently under consideration by the state senate.

Coetzee, who moved to Ann Arbor from South Africa ten years ago, said he is frustrated that rights for same sex couples in Michigan appear to be “moving in the opposite direction” of most communities. This year alone, five states have passed or enacted legislation allowing civil unions between same sex couples.

“I question my decision to come to Michigan,” Coetzee said. When Coetzee accepted a job at U-M, he also turned one down at New York University. “I chose Michigan because it just seemed better. But now New York just made same sex marriage legal and now in Michigan they want people like my partner to not get treated.”

U-M Latin professor Sara Ahbel-Rappe said that if bill 4770 passes there will likely be a large exodus of professors who leave the university.

“It’s a total slap in the face. It tells me that I don’t deserve the same consideration” as heterosexual couples, she said. “People will leave.”

Ahbel-Rappe and six other professors authored a letter to Gov. Rick Synder asking him not to sign bill 4770 if passed by the senate. The letter calls the bill discriminatory and says it will negatively affect staff recruitment at the university.

U-M officials are also concerned about the bill’s effects. Nearly all of U-M’s competitors offer benefits to same-sex partners. So do most Fortune 500 companies.

“These benefits are important for the successful recruitment and retention of our top-flight faculty and staff,” said Cynthia Wilbanks, U-M’s vice president of government relations. “We’re in competition on a lot of levels, this would be an added competitive disadvantage.”

Wilbanks said the university is actively lobbying politicians in Lansing.

Will it be enough? “If the bill gets to the senate floor there will be a vigorous debate ..." she said, "but over a long career, I have learned not to speculate.”

But the uncertainty is too much for some professors, who don’t want to be left in the lurch if the bill passes.

“The consequences of this is that I am actively applying for jobs elsewhere at universities that don’t have these limitations,” Coetzee said. “I don’t want to leave the University of Michigan, I am really happy here. It’s a great school to work at, but I have to take care of my family.”

Scott Dennis has been a librarian at U-M for 14 years. His partner of 10 years originally moved to Ann Arbor after being lured by the school's domestic partner benefits (that partner now runs his own business).

Dennis says, if passed, the bill would be an insurmountable blow to U-M.

“I am concerned for the university as a whole,” Dennis said. “It would be a really damaging blow to the university’s reputation as a fair and humane employer. I think it would cause us to lose faculty and never get them back.”

“It would just be tragic for the university,” he added.

Rep. Dave Agema, a Republican who sponsored the bill, contends that there are 618 individuals —at a cost to the state of $7,000 to $10,000 per person— receiving benefits through U-M’s domestic partner benefits program. The program allows the non-biological children of a staff member’s domestic partner to also receive benefits.

Currently domestic benefits extend to both heterosexual and homosexual domestic partners.

"It is not the responsibility of taxpayers to support the roommates and unmarried partners of public employees," Agema said in a statement. "Providing benefits in this way is not the role of the state, especially when tax dollars are in short supply and there are critical programs being affected by the decrease in revenue.”

Sonya Alvarado, president of the Eastern Michigan University Federation of Teachers union, said the bill sends the wrong message to college students.

"The message we would be sending to our students if this goes through is a negative one," she said. "The university is about inclusion. The university is about open discussion. This bill just goes against everything that the university is about."

Comments

lordhelmet

Wed, Nov 23, 2011 : 12:32 p.m.

Well stated Rep Agema:
&quot;It is not the responsibility of taxpayers to support the roommates and unmarried partners of public employees,&quot; Agema said in a statement. &quot;Providing benefits in this way is not the role of the state, especially when tax dollars are in short supply and there are critical programs being affected by the decrease in revenue."
Two gay men or two gay women are both bread winners. Let them pay their own bread.

Andrew Smith

Mon, Nov 7, 2011 : 12:22 a.m.

This isn't about anyone's freedom or individual expression. This is about more than six million taxpayer dollars being spent on someone's curious attempts to redefine words like 'marriage' and 'family' - that's a lot of money to spend in the pursuit of alternative definitions. Remember that each of those dollars was taken from a hard-working citizen of Michigan.

BhavanaJagat

Wed, Nov 2, 2011 : 1:57 p.m.

A Blessing in Disguise : I had diagnosed Angiosarcoma, and Rhabdomyosarcoma in the past and my patients have died in spite of the best possible treatment that we could provide at a Malignant Disease Treatment Centre. Gary Woodall is not a victim of this proposed legislation. Medical insurance has no relevance to his medical condition as the condition is of unknown origin. His civil union is not recognized by State of Michigan. He is currently unemployed. He is entitled to seek the benefit of Medicaid. He may like to empty his bank account and give away his financial assets to his partner and he would qualify for Medicaid. Some years ago, I read the story about a Pastor who had made the painful decision to divorce his wife to ensure that she qualifies for Medicaid to pay for her cancer treatment. I would call that act of divorce as an act of Love, the neighborly Love that Jesus has Commanded us to follow. Love is a complex emotional instinct and reason is required to regulate it, to direct it and to restrain it. To manifest love as deep affection, and devotion, we need to restrain the feelings of sexual desire. Both of my patients were married, had devoted partners who had provided the energy and courage to endure the ordeal they went through. Medical Insurance is not the answer for the problems of Life and Death. This proposed legislation has opened the door to reexamine our lives and express our love for one another with spiritual feelings and thoughts.

mi4198

Tue, Nov 1, 2011 : 5:20 p.m.

Aren't we getting universal healthcare? Doesn't that solve the problem?

BhavanaJagat

Tue, Nov 1, 2011 : 3:45 p.m.

What is my relationship with myself?
Employees of University of Michigan may think of looking &quot;ELSEWHERE&quot;. Eventually, all of us have to look at ourselves. We can run, but, there could be no place to hide. My concern is not about imposing personal values, or religion upon the lives of others. There is no choice and there is no escape and man will be forced to look at himself and define his purpose in life. While commenting on the Gay-Lesbian relationship issues in the past, I have several times given my support as I am an advocate of Individualism. The Individual exists for his own benefit and it is not his purpose to serve the purpose of the group or the community. Being an Individual, when you look at yourself, you recognize that you exist as a biological community and hence you live in relationship with a community of living, individual cells. The Individual has to formulate a relationship, a partnership, a charter for his association with the individual cells of his own body that constitute the human organism. The Individual supports, sustains, preserves, and defends his existence if his relationship or partnership with the individual cells is based upon respect, dignity, trust, sympathy, understanding, feelings, and thoughts of compassion. A relationship or partnership based upon sympathy, feelings, and thoughts of compassion is described as a spiritual relationship. The issue is not that of my sexual or gender preference. My human existence demands that I maintain a spiritual relationship with the Individual Cells of my own organism which exist for my purpose and display functional subordination for my benefit. Human existence is served by compassion. I ask as to what is the source of Compassion? Some readers have shared thoughts about love and hatred in the context of Christian principles of Life. The Book of Matthew, Chapter 22, verse 39 reads: &quot; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.&quot; It asks me to love myself with spiritual feelings.

BhavanaJagat

Wed, Nov 2, 2011 : 2:25 p.m.

Thanks for that thoughtful response. There is no contradiction. An Individual is Free to either Love or not to Love. Man is a created being and yet God has given man the freedom to choose. Adam had chosen to disobey God while he was given the Freedom to obey or disobey God. While creating man, man is given no choice other than that of existing as an Individual with Individuality. I recognize my Individuality and use it to recognize the creative power of God. To obey God's Commandment, man needs preparation of his mind to follow the instruction. The instruction to love another person would be followed if I learn to love the created being with feelings and thoughts of the nature of spiritual relationships.

Phillip Farber

Tue, Nov 1, 2011 : 4:45 p.m.

I couldn't help but note the contradiction between these two statements in your post above:
&quot;The Individual exists for his own benefit and it is not his purpose to serve the purpose of the group or the community.&quot;
vs.
'The Book of Matthew, Chapter 22, verse 39 reads: &quot; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. It asks me to love myself with spiritual feelings.&quot;'
Ayn Rand couldn't have put the first more succinctly. But your interpretation of Matthew gets it entirely backwards. It's not about you but about how you treat others.
Peace.

John Gee

Tue, Nov 1, 2011 : 2:29 p.m.

What you people that support this discriminatory bill don't seem to understand is that LGBT employees of the University of Michigan work hard and earn their benefits just like everyone else. If they can't offer their life partner health insurance, then their total compensation package has lost value as a result. Heterosexual employees don't work any harder, so why should they be more generously compensated by the University? At the very least, the University should consider paying those employees more to at least cover what the University would have contributed to the partner's health care premium. This still wouldn't redress the issue because that is not likely to be sufficient to obtain health care elsewhere. In addition, our discriminatory federal policies (rammed through by right wingers) already force LGBT employees to pay federal tax on those benefits, when others don't have to.
The other thing that you don't understand is that the University doesn't give these benefits to just anyone--that's a total red herring and a lie. My partner and I had to be registered as domestic partners with the City of Ann Arbor to initiate my health care coverage, and the City has a process by which you have to show evidence of couplehood. Would it be possible to game the system and lie to obtain coverage for someone who is just a friend? Probably, if one tried hard enough. But the same could be true for non-LGBT employees who wanted to put a friend on.
Which brings me back to the point that LGBT employees earn their benefits the same as everyone else, and health care benefits are part of that total compensation package.
So if you oppose health care benefits for domestic partners, at least have the honesty to admit that it's because of your prejudice and antipathy against LGBT people, not because you're so concerned about saving the system a few million dollars a year, and thereby putting people's lives at risk. Hateful and non-Christian is what it is.

Matthew Newton

Tue, Nov 1, 2011 : 1:16 p.m.

I'm surprised that the following orgs oppose this bill and yet it passed the house:
POSITIONS:
The Michigan Department of Civil Rights opposes the bills. (6-21-11)
The ACLU of Michigan opposes the bills. (6-21-11)
Equality Michigan opposes the bills. (6-21-11)
The Michigan Townships Association opposes the bills. (6-21-11)
The Michigan State Employees Association opposes the bills. (6-21-11)
The AFL-CIO opposes the bills. (6-21-11)
The Michigan Chapter of the National Association of Social Workers opposes the bills.(6-21-11)
The Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Local 517 opposes the bills. (6-21-11)
Michigan National Organization for Women opposes the bills. (6-21-11)
EPIOA Consulting opposes the bills. (6-21-11)
Here's the full analysis: <a href="http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2011-2012/billanalysis/House/pdf/2011-HLA-4770-3.pdf" rel='nofollow'>http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2011-2012/billanalysis/House/pdf/2011-HLA-4770-3.pdf</a>

Mark

Tue, Nov 1, 2011 : 12:17 p.m.

I am so appalled by the mean-spirited comments here that it makes me ashamed for you people. What the hell ever happened to compassion, &quot;the Golden Rule&quot;, and furthermore, common decency? Most of us are better than that, yet, the basest comments pour forth on this from people that are apparently so hung up on what other people are doing that they feel they must vent their spleen and in doing so, sound a lot like the echo chamber of Rush Limbaugh. If you can't treat others as you would like to be treated, then I say to you - you are an embarrassment to the human race.

Marshall Applewhite

Tue, Nov 1, 2011 : 4:55 a.m.

This is great news! I'm going to have an easier time getting that UofM job I just applied for. Best benefits in the state!

John Gee

Tue, Nov 1, 2011 : 4:13 p.m.

Seriously? What next? Just think, if ONLY the U could legally discriminate against other minority groups too (you know, the ones that are now a protected class), your chances at getting a job at the U would be even BETTER! I gather that you haven't had much luck so far.

and what of the cost to U of M Health System and to the community as a whole for providing health care services to the uninsured?

John Gee

Tue, Nov 1, 2011 : 2:32 p.m.

If the University of Michigan can't afford to pay benefits to all of its employees, then it needs to raise more money or it needs to have fewer employees. Health insurance for one's loved ones has long been part of UM's total compensation package for employees.

Nicoise Kalamata

Tue, Nov 1, 2011 : 2:28 a.m.

Go ahead, Michigan, ruin the one good thing left in the state.

John Gee

Tue, Nov 1, 2011 : 6:51 p.m.

@Marshall: You seem unaware that domestic partner benefits are even rarer in the southern US. However, that doesn't make the situation any peachier for the folks who stand to lose their U of M coverage.

peg dash fab

Tue, Nov 1, 2011 : 6:46 a.m.

work on your reading comprehension, marshall. nicoise was referring to UM.

Marshall Applewhite

Tue, Nov 1, 2011 : 4:56 a.m.

Domestic partnership healthcare is the only good thing left in the state? If this is what you truly believe, there are some great places to live in the southern US.

townie54

Tue, Nov 1, 2011 : 2:21 a.m.

how about your partner get a good job with his own insurance

John Gee

Tue, Nov 1, 2011 : 2:33 p.m.

Health insurance for one's immediate family has long been a staple of UM's total compensation package for all employees. Can we drop the charade that this is about saving money, when it's all about discrimination? LGBT employees work just as hard as everyone else, so why shouldn't they be entitled to the same benefits?

Some Guy in 734

Tue, Nov 1, 2011 : 2:05 p.m.

This is how you talk about a cancer patient? Nice one, mate.

Billy Buchanan

Tue, Nov 1, 2011 : 1:30 a.m.

If Domestic Partners want to leave Michigan I don't believe there's locks or any doors around Michigan that will keep them from leaving.

SMAIVE

Tue, Nov 1, 2011 : 2:01 a.m.

Seriously?

Trek Glowacki

Tue, Nov 1, 2011 : 1:07 a.m.

Why not just cut all partner and spouse benefits? Seems like it'd be a great way to save money right now and drive talented people out of the state. It's a race to the bottom and we can't let Alabama keep winning!

Edward R Murrow's Ghost

Tue, Nov 1, 2011 : 1:54 a.m.

Never mind.
Here it is.
<a href="http://www.mlive.com/news/jackson/index.ssf/2011/10/springport_township_police_chi.html" rel='nofollow'>http://www.mlive.com/news/jackson/index.ssf/2011/10/springport_township_police_chi.html</a>
And, on its face, this is not a believable story. Read the whole article--something else is going on here, and it does not take a rocket scientist to suss it out.
But no one ever accused conservative homophobes of being rocket scientists.
UM employees have a VERY good and VERY expensive health care program for which they pay more than 20% of its costs (and the state law does not apply to them), the total cost of which is about $17,000.
No one, no matter how much gold plate there is on their health care plan, pays $30,000 for that plan.
GN&amp;GL

Edward R Murrow's Ghost

Tue, Nov 1, 2011 : 1:46 a.m.

@Joe:
You can, of course, provide a link to that story?
Of course you can.
GN&amp;GL

Joe Kidd

Tue, Nov 1, 2011 : 1:32 a.m.

Funny you should mention that, Trek. That is happening too. I read an article a week or two ago about the police chief in a Michigan township who quit because the city dropped his wife and child from his contract's health care benefits. It cost that city $30,000 while his salary was $46,000. Sounds like a Cadillac HC plan, costs nearly 75% of what his salary costs.

Billy Buchanan

Tue, Nov 1, 2011 : 12:59 a.m.

Hit the road Jack. I hope all domestic partners hit the road and leave Michigan. Governor Snyder you've got my vote again if you are man enough to do away with domestic partners (homosexual) benefits.
We don't need homosexual partners getting benefits. What does the domestic partner do all day sit at home and watch soaps or polilsh the silverware? Adios ameigo.

Edward R Murrow's Ghost

Tue, Nov 1, 2011 : 2:27 a.m.

Many employers do not provide health care--even for professionals.
But that is really beside the point.
No one asks a heterosexual spouse to get a job in order to be covered by health insurance.
There is no reason outside of mean-spirited bigotry that it should be any different for homosexual couples.
Good Night and Good Luck

Loopy

Tue, Nov 1, 2011 : 2:18 a.m.

Fair enough question. Most of my friends do each have their own insurance, and that goes for straight couples, too. But I can see where if one partner gets cancer and can't work, they might become uninsurable, and the other one needs to help. Isn't that what being able to support your partner, husband or wife, is about? On the other hand, I have a friend whose wife is unfortunately a hopeless drug addict who is threatening him for custody of his only son, and she has him over a barrel. She can't pour water out of a boot with instructions written on the heel, but she can be on his health insurance because they are of the opposite sex.

Joe Kidd

Tue, Nov 1, 2011 : 1:32 a.m.

If they are professionals, why don't they have employer provided HC plans Loop?

Loopy

Tue, Nov 1, 2011 : 1:07 a.m.

No, that's for housewives. Most domestic partners I know are both professionals. Nice try, though.

Loopy

Tue, Nov 1, 2011 : 12:08 a.m.

So Kim Kardashian, who was married for about 72 minutes (sorry, days), has more rights than a committed couple who aren't heterosexual. That makes NO sense, and everybody knows it.

Kafkaland

Mon, Oct 31, 2011 : 10:25 p.m.

No, Bob. Top 1% is above 365k adjusted gross income. There are only a handful of individuals at UM making that much (president, EVP medical affairs, and some football coaches). A typical linguistics professor is far from it, he will be lucky if he makes it into the top ten percent (112k AGI). As always, don't let the facts get in the way of your opinions.

Basic Bob

Mon, Oct 31, 2011 : 10:03 p.m.

All you people clamoring about the evils of the 1%, consider that your poster child is one of the 1%. (2%, tops) And you want to give him an enticement to stay. Confusing....

Heardoc

Mon, Oct 31, 2011 : 10 p.m.

I have a company and I will never offer these benefits. This is ridiculous. Why should we treat a homosexual different than a heterosexual? We need to treat homosexuals as they are -- single people. To be married is to have children -- homosexuals cannot have children between themselves -- they need a third party. That is why homosexuals cannot marry -- just a farce. Yeah, yeah -- the argument is that they can adopt -- so can single people. Another is invitro (for female homosexuals) again a third party is involved-- not a marriage. Now, if a man and woman are married and cannot have children naturally-- then invitro is an option-- again man and woman--not man and man nor woman and woman or transgender and transgender (I think I listed them all).

Some Guy in 734

Tue, Nov 1, 2011 : 8:34 p.m.

OHHH, NOW I get it. Because we're not generating new people, we're not making new customers for your business. (Whew. It's not discrimination--just trying to keep the customer base up.)

Some Guy in 734

Tue, Nov 1, 2011 : 8:32 p.m.

The head on the pillow next to mine belongs to a woman--my wife--but we're not having children. Does that mean that we're single now? Boy, is my face red. Sure is going to be a pain figuring out who gets which of our wedding presents.

Scylding

Tue, Nov 1, 2011 : 7:03 p.m.

Make that two new customers.

a2citizen

Tue, Nov 1, 2011 : 3:45 a.m.

Heardoc. Wish I knew your company. You would gain a new customer.

Loopy

Tue, Nov 1, 2011 : 12:50 a.m.

So are you opposed to the elderly remarrying?

Charlie Brown's Ghost

Tue, Nov 1, 2011 : 12:44 a.m.

&quot;One of the dumbest and stupidest positions ever taken by a poster.&quot;
Yet more name-calling for those with differing opinions. The tolerant left, ladies and gentlemen!

johnnya2

Mon, Oct 31, 2011 : 10:49 p.m.

Let's start annulling all marriages that do not have children. Those that choose not to and those unable to. When your mother went through menopause she and her husband should be forced to break up and not receive benefits since they can no longer produce children.
One of the dumbest and stupidest positions ever taken by a poster.
I also love how tough guys on the internet tell us they own a company that will never do something. Hers an idea. Let us all know the name of your bigoted business you run, so we can decide where to spend our money. You aren't man enough to do it.

Heardoc

Mon, Oct 31, 2011 : 9:51 p.m.

Do what you want -- just not on my dime. No special rights for homosexuals. There will be NO MASS EXODUS. Face it -- homosexuality is a lifestyle that i do not and will not support. I don't support many peoples lifestyles ie; S&amp;M, manage a trois or anything that is outside the normal man/woman relationship that is the basis for the family is this country. Funny how all these people feel that their desires should override the will of the people. This is a minority group that is asking for special rights and we, as a group, said NO.

Some Guy in 734

Tue, Nov 1, 2011 : 8:28 p.m.

Amazingly enough, I absolutely agree with your first two sentences. We're talking about identical rights, not special rights.

Charlie Brown's Ghost

Tue, Nov 1, 2011 : 1:40 p.m.

Loopy, it was a backwater - literally - originally. It was mostly swamp. Parts of it were described in Congress as, &quot;The most remote place on the face of the earth, if not the moon.&quot; Since then, people have built it into something great. And we want to keep it that way.

hail2thevict0r

Tue, Nov 1, 2011 : 11:24 a.m.

Joe, I'm not sure how you see it as anything else. It's treating a group of people differently based on their lifestyle choices. Just because we're in the early stages of the legal process of getting it classified as such doesn't make it any less true. Plenty of states have already rules it to be discrimination. It's only a matter of time before it's all 50 states, or at a federal level.
Segregation wasn't always viewed as discrimination in all 50 states either, but I'm guessing you think THAT is discrimination. This is just a case of the US not learning from it's own mistakes and in 50 years we will view this much like Women's rights to vote, and segregation.
This would not open the door to anything. I don't think any gay rights group would have an issue if they were allowed to get married, and must therefore be married, to receive such benefits. UM, and other institutions, have resorted to giving them benefits to stay competitive against the thousands of other Universities that do the same -or - reside in states where Gay Marriage is legal.

Joe Kidd

Tue, Nov 1, 2011 : 1:44 a.m.

I do not think it appropriate Hail2 to describe this issue as discrimination. That is because it has not been ruled on as such. If it was discrimination this would not be happening, this Rep would not be able to present this bill.
You cannot say it is discrimination just because you want it to be. Also that could theoretically open the door to groups of people banding together, naming themselves something and demanding benefits. For example, unmarried people, who personally find marriage unpalatable could start a movement and piggy back on the gay rights initiative.
From the beginning I had no real opinion on this, but I thought very unfair for the UM to give benefits to same sex unmarried people living together and not to opposite sex unmarried people living together who for whatever reason to not want to get married.

hail2thevict0r

Tue, Nov 1, 2011 : 1 a.m.

Heterosexuality is a lifestyle. And it's not on &quot;your dime&quot;. The only thing that's &quot;on your dime&quot; are the subsidized tuition of the in state students. Your tax dollars have nothing to do with the thousands of out of state students that attend the University. They have a right to a quality education and professors who aren't chased away by ignorant people - such as yourself.
What the hell is &quot;normal&quot;? I wouldn't consider you &quot;normal&quot; - but I wouldn't consider taking away your health benefits because I don't agree with you. This is beyond politics - this is the welfare of another human - despite their sexuality. Despite what you may think is normal, homosexuals think living, and loving, the same sex is normal and they think you're weird.
What's so ignorant about your comment is that you think just because the majority of people want to discriminate against a group of people - that it's right. Unfortunately we have this little thing called the Constitution and it won't be long before we finally, as a society, once again rise up and protect the minority with it. If &quot;majority ruled&quot;, as your comments suggest, black people would still be drinking out of separate water fountains and shopping at different stores, women wouldn't be able to vote, and Christianity would be taught in schools. Luckily the minority is protected from widespread ignorant views, such as your own.

Loopy

Tue, Nov 1, 2011 : 12:07 a.m.

So now human rights are a popularity contest? This state really is doomed. Sometimes I think it deserves to be a backwater.

arborani

Mon, Oct 31, 2011 : 11:49 p.m.

How *does* one manage a trois, anyway?

Dan

Mon, Oct 31, 2011 : 9:38 p.m.

There is a reason why the most successful companies and prestigious universities in the country offer domestic partnership benefits, and it isn't moral. Even the most conservative states have realized that the top talent (those who publish and attract the most funding and prestige) want to work at institutions which are not seen as discriminatory. The jobs will be filled, but as anyone involved in hiring the best of the best will tell you, they'll be filled with much less impressive individuals, and we'll all suffer for it.
Companies like Google and FedEx only think about the bottom line, and have realized that benefits are cost effective. There are a lot of immoral things about how businesses and universities are run, but one shouldn't let his morals get in the way of sound fiscal decisions.

John Gee

Tue, Nov 1, 2011 : 4:06 p.m.

@Joe: You seem to forget that LGBT people pay taxes too, not that it has stopped them from still being treated as second-class citizens.

Joe Kidd

Tue, Nov 1, 2011 : 1:50 a.m.

I can't argue with your point but I would say you cannot compare Google and FedEx or any private business with a public (state) agency or institution. When tax dollars fund an organization, the legislature has the right to put regulations on how that money is spent. Private business can spend their money however they wish as long as it is legal. The difference is business is spending its profits and state funded agencies are spending tax dollars. If the people who pay taxes oppose some spending, they have a right to ask for it to be stopped.

hail2thevict0r

Mon, Oct 31, 2011 : 8:54 p.m.

Man, we really don't learn from history do we? I don't know why we always have to label someone as different or treat some other group as outsiders in our society.
Pretty funny, not really haha funny, that these politicians screw Michigan up so bad that there's all these budget shortfalls and instead of say - cutting their own pay, health care or maybe, possibly, fixing the problems they created in a responsible way - they just look for some demographic to screw. Sure we've put Michigan millions of dollars in the hole but it's the &quot;gays&quot; fault - look at home much money they're costing us in health care! (sarcasm). Screw the kids of these gay people! It's their fault their parents are gay! Screw 'em!
There are a 148 combined state senators and house of representatives in Michigan who make a base salary of $71,650 per year + $1000 in &quot;office expenses&quot;. That's $10,604,200 in salary every year + $148,000 in &quot;office expenses&quot;. You want to save some money, how about we start right there. I guarantee that most aren't making the &quot;base&quot; salary either. And I'm betting that every single one of them gets the same amount of health care that they're trying to cut away from gay people. It's ridiculous. They way to help our state is NOT to discriminate against a group so badly that they are forced to leave, a well educated group non the less.
Dumb, just dumb.

Edward R Murrow's Ghost

Mon, Oct 31, 2011 : 8:26 p.m.

New State Motto: Michigan: Love it or Leave it
Alternate New State Motto: Welcome to Rick Snyder's Plantation
2nd Alternate New State Motto: Michigan: Our Goal is to out-Mississippi Mississippi
Good Night and Good Luck

Edward R Murrow's Ghost

Tue, Nov 1, 2011 : 1:04 a.m.

@sayitplain:
Not to worry.
Tell's us much about the attacker's lack of character.
Were I A2.com I'd leave 'em up so that they are in the ether for eternity as proof of their vacuousness.
GN&amp;GL

say it plain

Tue, Nov 1, 2011 : 12:28 a.m.

Okay, now, I gotta say that the attacks on ERMG that standardly get made in these forums sure don't pass the alleged moderation guidelines, jeez...
I mean, he can clearly take it, but still...

Edward R Murrow's Ghost

Mon, Oct 31, 2011 : 9:23 p.m.

No, CBG.
I'll not let the radical wrong drive me out of my state of birth and a state that I love.
But nice reply.
The state is losing population, and your solution and that of others is to send more people packing.
Tells us much--none of it good--about you.
GN&amp;GL

Charlie Brown's Ghost

Mon, Oct 31, 2011 : 9:10 p.m.

&quot;New State Motto: Michigan: Love it or Leave it&quot;
If we help you pack, will you leave sooner?
Good Night and Good Grief

Gregory Fox

Mon, Oct 31, 2011 : 8:21 p.m.

This would be less of an issue if we had single payer health insurance through the state or federal government. In Canada (aside from the fact that same gender marriage is legal nationwide) a person is not dependent on their job for health insurance. A lot of people have lost jobs in Canada due to the economic downturn and outsourcing, but because of single payer health insurance they didn't loose their basic health insurance along with their job.

Joe Kidd

Tue, Nov 1, 2011 : 1:58 a.m.

Single payer is not a good system and will not work in the U.S. without a complete restructuring of health care. For example in Great Britain, all Drs in the NHS work for the govt hospitals, get paid much less than Drs in the U.S. There is a mandatory wait period for at least some hospitals and lots of restrictions. Expect about an 11% raise in taxes. They also have funding issues:
<a href="http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/dec2005/nhs-d31.shtml" rel='nofollow'>http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/dec2005/nhs-d31.shtml</a>
And in re to restrictions:
<a href="http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/uk_smoker_denied_surgery_for_broken_ankle/" rel='nofollow'>http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/uk_smoker_denied_surgery_for_broken_ankle/</a>
It's not a pleasant way to deliver HC. You just can't implement what some countries do to the U.S.

Dan

Mon, Oct 31, 2011 : 9:16 p.m.

The Black Stallion should really consult The Heritage Foundation, Forbes, or any number of right wing think tanks, which all rate Canada as more business friendly than the US due to a simplified tax code which puts less of a burden on business owners. Australia, New Zealand, Denmark, and Switzerland also rate higher. These are all places with universal healthcare and economies which have by and large dodged the recession.

The Black Stallion3

Mon, Oct 31, 2011 : 8:25 p.m.

Well..........I guess we should all move to Canada and see if it is better......OH......what kind of taxes do they pay?

Mike,
as the legislation is written, the University cannot use any money for benefits for non-married partners, no matter the sourse. So even if a wealthy donor stepped up and gave UM all the money for it, they would not be allowed to do it. It is also worth noting that already only a tiny fraction of what UM currently pays for these benefits comes from taxpayer money. If, let's say, a physician at the hospital draws upon theese benefits, they're paid for by hospital revenues, not general funds. Same for research scientists working on externally funded grants, etc. That leaves only a small fraction, perhaps a quarter or so, on general funds. And state appropriations cover only 20% of the general funds, so a good estimate would be that only about 5%, or 200-300k of these benefits come actually from state tax revenues. And losing and replacing a single senior faculty member in the natural or medical sciences or engineering costs UM easily a few millions. As it has been pointed out before, this is not about the money; the benefits are actually a good investment; it's about ideology.

MIKE

Mon, Oct 31, 2011 : 7:47 p.m.

Is there anything stopping the University from digging in to their own pockets to pay for same-sex benefits? They can certainly afford it, and it would give taxpayers some needed relief. Couple that with the fact that the U would be able to attract and retain talent, it sounds like a win-win.

hail2thevict0r

Mon, Oct 31, 2011 : 9:07 p.m.

Yes, this bill.

bluemax79

Mon, Oct 31, 2011 : 7:33 p.m.

the university is an elite institution
and a TAX PAYER funded institution at that, paying for same sex partners that add nothing to the gene pool is NOT what the taxpayers of this state want.
why doesn't his &quot;partner&quot; get a job with benefits instead of sponging off the taxpayers?
we have important things to do with our tax dollars.
the free ride is over people, Michigan cannot afford more of the last FAILED Governor or her policies!
the poeple voted for Snyder because they WANT REAL CHANGE, not more social welfare programs and free rides on the backs of the taxpayers.

a2citizen

Tue, Nov 1, 2011 : 2:27 p.m.

peg, federal funding is not itemized in that balance sheet.
Referring to Table 1, State appropriations are $316.572 million. Total revenues are $1.455 billion. State funding works out to 21.7% of the budget, which is hardly &quot;...a small fraction...&quot; that hail2 says it is.
According to the links below: the 2010 fed expenditures were $751 million
the 2009 fed expenditures were $636 million
the 2008 fed expenditures were $592 million
<a href="http://www.annarbor.com/news/research-spending-at-university-of-michigan-grows/">http://www.annarbor.com/news/research-spending-at-university-of-michigan-grows/</a>
<a href="http://chronicle.com/article/Top-Institutions-in-Federal/123971/" rel='nofollow'>http://chronicle.com/article/Top-Institutions-in-Federal/123971/</a>
<a href="http://www2.med.umich.edu/prmc/media/newsroom/details.cfm?ID=1733" rel='nofollow'>http://www2.med.umich.edu/prmc/media/newsroom/details.cfm?ID=1733</a>
Refer to the U-M Regent report: Page 3 of 10, states, and I quote, &quot;Federal funding, which comprises just under two-thirds of the U-M's current research total...&quot; The U-M Regents report states U-M Federal Research expenditures of $750,937,273.
The U-M Regents report with this information can be found at:
<a href="http://www.regents.umich.edu/meetings/01-11/2011-01-II-6a.pdf" rel='nofollow'>www.regents.umich.edu/meetings/01-11/2011-01-II-6a.pdf</a>
Further sources substantiating the numbers:
<a href="https://www.michigandaily.com/blog/research-spending-university-reaches-124-billion" rel='nofollow'>https://www.michigandaily.com/blog/research-spending-university-reaches-124-billion</a>
<a href="http://research.umich.edu/quick-facts/annual-reports-on-u-m-research-scholarship/u-m-exceeds-1-billion/" rel='nofollow'>http://research.umich.edu/quick-facts/annual-reports-on-u-m-research-scholarship/u-m-exceeds-1-billion/</a>
ns.umich.edu/htdocs/releases/story.php?id=8005
Hope this helps.

peg dash fab

Tue, Nov 1, 2011 : 6:42 a.m.

a2citizen, i'm trying to check your work ... where in Table 1 do you see $750M in federal subsidies. also, i don't see the hospital reflected in Table 1 at all. i don't think Table 1 tells anything like the whole picture. my understanding is that state subsidies represent less than 10% of UM revenues, when all sources are taken into consideration.

a2citizen

Tue, Nov 1, 2011 : 3:41 a.m.

hail2thevict0r: Are you serious? The University receive 750 million in federal subsidies and 300 million in state subsidies. The budget is 1.5 billion.
The university is most certainly a taxpayer funded university.
<a href="http://www.provost.umich.edu/budgeting/budget_2010-2011.html" rel='nofollow'>http://www.provost.umich.edu/budgeting/budget_2010-2011.html</a>

Joe Kidd

Tue, Nov 1, 2011 : 2:21 a.m.

The thing is the UM belongs to the State of Michigan and cannot break away into a private university. If you think they can, please tell us how they would do that. The people who work there could break away, but they would have to leave the buildings and equipment where they are. I know of no way they can take for themselves what belongs to the State.
Odd that Hail2 says tax dollars are &quot;a fraction&quot; of funding and &quot;only subsidize&quot; tuition, yet lacking those tax subsidies in Hail2's computations, in state tuition would more than double, tuition would increase two and a half times. That is quite a &quot;small fraction.&quot;
One of the first things you learn in govt class is that whoever holds the purse strings has a lot of power. You may disagree with Bluemax's opinion, but basically s/he is correct. The legislators represent the majority of voters and will do as they perceive what the voters want.
Your relief is at the ballot box. If the majority disagrees these policies can be tossed out with later elections.

Bill

Mon, Oct 31, 2011 : 9:32 p.m.

Perhaps you should check your facts before making statements. @hail2thevict0r has some real facts for you to consider in his response.
Perhaps U of M should discontinue health benefits for everyone other than employees including married spouses and children. Why shouldn't the married spouse get out and get a job with benefits instead of spoonging off the taxpayers? That is only fair isn't it?

hail2thevict0r

Mon, Oct 31, 2011 : 9:05 p.m.

Michigan is hardly a &quot;tax payer funded&quot; institution. A small fraction of the operating budget comes from the &quot;tax payer&quot; and, in fact, most of the operating costs come from student tuition. The only thing tax payers do is subsidize in-state student tuition so that an in state student, instead of paying $30,000 a year to attend the university (like out of state students, they only pay $12,000. So in this matter the state should shut up and consider itself lucky that UM hasn't broken off into a private institution because the State, and folks like you, are making it seem like a better option every day that goes on. I'm guessing you wouldn't want to, assuming your kids are smart enough (which I highly doubt based on the ignorance of your post) to get into UM, you, or they, wouldn't want to pay $30,000 for tuition.
Professors are there to provide and education, and elite one as you stated, to our youth in the state of Michigan. They are not there to populate the gene pool. Or, I guess we could take health care benefits away from every single state-employed person who never had kids in their life because they didn't re-populate the gene pool. How about the people who can't physically have kids? We should take it away from them as well. Screw their spouses - they provide nothing to the gene pool! I assume based on those examples you see the ignorance in your post - at least I hope you do.

Wolf's Bane

Mon, Oct 31, 2011 : 6:47 p.m.

Stupid is what stupid does. Same-sex couples deserve (and need) family-style benefits just like anyone else. To deny them, is to classify them as lesser beings.

CONCERNED CITIZEN

Mon, Oct 31, 2011 : 6:40 p.m.

Thank you Black Stallion! If you don't like not getting benefits for your &quot;same sex&quot; partner, who cares! If and when the U of M decides to give benefits to heterosexual couples that are not married, but in a commited relationship, then maybe we could look the the homosexual partners, until then, too bad for you. You already get special treatment from the liberal minds at U of M....I am sure California would welcome you. There have got to be many, many heterosexual people to fill their jobs! Only in Ann Arbor would this be an issue!

hail2thevict0r

Mon, Oct 31, 2011 : 8:59 p.m.

The only reason UM is forced to give same-sex couples benefits is because Michigan doesn't recognize same-sex marriage. Just because something is illegal, &quot;same sex marriage&quot;, doesn't make it right and public institutions were making a stand against it to stay competitive. This is not only an issue in Ann Arbor - but every single public University in the state.

Marilyn Wilkie

Mon, Oct 31, 2011 : 7:45 p.m.

I repeat my comment above -
may be missing something here but it looks like you could enroll a roommate (and their children) who you are not in a relationship with according to this information. They just need to have lived under your roof for 6 months. But as the previous commenter said, there could be financial consequences, which the other person could cover I suppose.
link is here: <a href="http://benefits.umich.edu/eligibility/oqa.html" rel='nofollow'>http://benefits.umich.edu/eligibility/oqa.html</a> .
In other words, this says to me that they will give benefits to heterosexual partners.

The Black Stallion3

Mon, Oct 31, 2011 : 7:03 p.m.

I do believe we see things in the same light, why the bashing?

rusty shackelford

Mon, Oct 31, 2011 : 6:17 p.m.

Another note to a2.com--
Contrary to the impression you may be getting from a few right wing trolls, you report on, and your draw revenue from, a very liberal, open, accepting community. Since it is well known that you heavily moderate/delete comments (often appropriately, in my view), the fact that you are allowing so many openly and less-openly homophobic comments to stand must be seen as a tacit endorsement of such comments. Statements such as &quot;homosexuality is not normal,&quot; and &quot;same sex marriage is disgusting,&quot; have no place in a civil dialogue.
I hope that any advertisers serving Ann Arbor take note of the many homophobic comments that the site allows to stand while deleting other &quot;offensive&quot; comments. As long as this continues, I will make a point NOT to patronize any advertisers on this site, and encourage others to do the same. Local businesses need to contact their a2.com reps and tell them they do not want their names associated with the tripe being spewed forth, however indirectly, under its aegis.
Again, until this site demonstrates that it is conscientiously banning homophobic comments along with other hate speech, I will NOT patronize ANY advertiser hereon.

a2citizen

Tue, Nov 1, 2011 : 3:36 a.m.

Well Rusty, you win. You managed to squelch a dissenting opinion. You can shop at those businesses that advertise here.
&quot;... you report on, and your draw revenue from a very liberal, open, accepting community...&quot;
Except of course, if they have a different opinion than you. Are you part lf a2.com's revenue stream? I was a subscriber of home delivery until a month ago.
I quit home subscription and now only take the free online version because of people like you.
By the way, do you own a business? I'd like to know which one not to patronize.

Joe Kidd

Tue, Nov 1, 2011 : 2:29 a.m.

Prior restraint has no place in a civil dialogue. Rusty is recommending that anyone expressing their opinion on this issue should not be allowed to do so. That is chilling and is partly what lead to the revolution that created this country.

Edward R Murrow's Ghost

Mon, Oct 31, 2011 : 9:38 p.m.

&quot;Homophobia is a term used to refer to a range of negative attitudes and feelings towards lesbian, gay and in some cases bisexual, transgender people and behavior.&quot;
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homophobia" rel='nofollow'>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homophobia</a>
The shoe appears to fit.
But it is understandable why the radial wrong does not like the label, as it makes clear exactly how intolerant they are of people they don't much like.
GN&amp;GL

Charlie Brown's Ghost

Mon, Oct 31, 2011 : 9:06 p.m.

Yet another member of the left trying to shut down opposing opinions. They've even created a name for this differing opinion - homophobic - and made sure to make it one that sounds scary, with the hope of shutting-up anybody who might have the nerve to even think about voicing their opposing viewpoint. The left: the people of tolerance... HA!

Edward R Murrow's Ghost

Mon, Oct 31, 2011 : 8:30 p.m.

rork,
You are absolutely correct.
Let the bigoted homophobes' comments live on forever in the ether to discredit forever their thoughts on this and other subjects.
Good Night and Good Luck

Rork Kuick

Mon, Oct 31, 2011 : 8:23 p.m.

Oh, I think the comments are telling, and should live on.
Don't you want your opponents to look as bad as possible?
They may be useful in discrediting some of the writers in future.
I see some depleted uranium rounds today.

The Black Stallion3

Mon, Oct 31, 2011 : 8:03 p.m.

Good point Mike, we are all entitled to our opinion. Rusty seems to think only his opinion is valid.....Is this not a Democracy? Please Rusty.....

Peter

Mon, Oct 31, 2011 : 7:44 p.m.

Don't kid yourself, these comments are a right wing echo chamber most of the time.

MIKE

Mon, Oct 31, 2011 : 7:44 p.m.

Rusty, you feel that people that disagree with you are &quot;homophobic&quot;, and need to be silenced. That tells me you have no argument.
Taken on their face value, those statement are hardly &quot;homophobic&quot;(denoting a fear of homosexuals). They are stating opinions, which are as valid as yours. You don't have to agree with them, but they have a right to have them.

rusty shackelford

Mon, Oct 31, 2011 : 7:20 p.m.

And I don't care what you think is &quot;normal&quot; or not or how you define normality. I'm concerned about your normativity--demanding that we as a society bow to your personal prejudices.

bunnyabbot

Mon, Oct 31, 2011 : 7:02 p.m.

also how is saying I don't think homosexuality is not normal homophobic? I am not afraid of gay people, I am not even saying they can't be gay. I am just saying it is not normal (normal based on the definition of normal).
is there a word for people that are afraid of people having a different believe and or opinion as they do, you may have that fear.

The Black Stallion3

Mon, Oct 31, 2011 : 7:02 p.m.

I am prone to believe that the freedom of speech does not apply in this instance of socialism.

rusty shackelford

Mon, Oct 31, 2011 : 6:47 p.m.

MIKE is imputing his own fallacy on to me; I gave 2 examples of actually homophobic statements and could have given several more. And honestly, when even the &quot;non hateful&quot; argument is that members of my family and my best friends do not deserve equal treatment, it's hard to really find much to engage with. Take note: using sarcasm doesn't make you any smarter or make your argument any stronger.
This other character is not worth responding to at all.

MIKE

Mon, Oct 31, 2011 : 6:29 p.m.

That's right, a good debate ALWAYS consists of just one point of view. And being that ANY disagreement is homophobic and/or hateful, it becomes necessary to silence anyone that dissents from the party line.

The Black Stallion3

Mon, Oct 31, 2011 : 6:14 p.m.

Well look at it like this...........When you all leave the traffic in Ann Arbor will not be so bad...I can hardly wait....Goodbye.

MIKE

Mon, Oct 31, 2011 : 6:33 p.m.

It really won't...because those positions would be filled immediately.

HaeJee

Mon, Oct 31, 2011 : 6:11 p.m.

It is sad to read some of the comments on hear bashing the life style of homosexuals. I am not sure what makes someone dislike a group that is just trying to live the same life that us straight folks often times take for granted. The people bashing this group, are the same folks that will pass on this cave-man mentality to their next generation. I think it says a lot about an individual that wants to keep privileges that they have, away from another group.

BhavanaJagat

Mon, Oct 31, 2011 : 5:33 p.m.

Mass Flight from Reality : I am constantly surprised by the fact that I live in Ann Arbor and I am not aware of as to what the University of Michigan thinks about the meaning of terms like life, human being, health, sexual or other relationships and interactions among members of the same species. Why is this University stands as a mute spectator? Why is it a problem to define terms that have value? This person has stepped out and has put his human face to this story because of personal or vested interest. I never come across his name or that of others who are connected with the University holding high positions for their intellectual accomplishments while I read AnnArbor.com on a daily basis. What is that he had shared with this community until now? What has been his contribution to any discussion at this Readers Forum? Why his departure should be of any concern to me? How his pay, status, position, and benefits at U of M should be of any human consequence to me if he has no ability to interact with this Community of Readers and Residents of Ann Arbor? If all these highly qualified people have a reason to discuss a personal issue that may affect them, I want to know as to why I should listen to them? What is that you have that could be of some interest and initiate an interaction between you and me? If you have nothing to really offer, please be assured that you will not be missed. If these intellectuals think that I must pay tuition fees and costs to know their views and thoughts, I would respectfully tell them to take their existence to elsewhere. Their problems are none of my concern until they make their presence known and felt by the community in a clear, and visible manner. To initiate my biotic interaction with Andries Coetze, I would ask him to explain his understanding of the term health and as to how insurance can secure the well-being of his domestic partner?

John Gee

Tue, Nov 1, 2011 : 3:58 p.m.

Seriously? I fail to see how the fact that you haven't heard of this person before makes his situation any less worthy of consideration and sympathy. Apparently many others feel the same. And do you really need someone to explain to you why an individual who is in remission from a life-threatening health condition would need health insurance? (Re: your question &quot;I would ask him to explain his understanding of the term health and as to how insurance can secure the well-being of his domestic partner&quot;)

Edward R Murrow's Ghost

Mon, Oct 31, 2011 : 5:33 p.m.

Yup.
We don't want these well educated, middle class people in our state.
Good Riddance!
Good Night and Good Luck

SMAIVE

Mon, Oct 31, 2011 : 7:21 p.m.

Yep, that's the same logic the pro sport teams use..oh wait

MIKE

Mon, Oct 31, 2011 : 6:36 p.m.

They're welcome to stay.
If they choose not to, their positions will be taken by other well educated, middle class people.

Peter Baker

Mon, Oct 31, 2011 : 5:31 p.m.

&quot;Nearly all of U-M's competitors offer benefits to same-sex partners. So do most Fortune 500 companies.&quot;
That says it all. You think Fortune 500 companies care what people do at home? They want to compete, and as long as Michigan let's bigotry get in the way of attracting the talent it needs to fill the state with bright, hard-working people, it'll never compete with the vibrant economies of more inclusive states.

Peter Baker

Tue, Nov 1, 2011 : 12:56 p.m.

Perhaps you're confused because not everything falls in to an easily dismissable left/right argument.

Scylding

Mon, Oct 31, 2011 : 6:12 p.m.

Ah yes, Fortune 500 companies, those shining examples of benevolence and right values that the left keeps telling us we should model our lives after...wait a second, that's not what you all have been saying...! What's goin' on here!

dogpaddle

Mon, Oct 31, 2011 : 4:55 p.m.

To a2.com: How come CB's Ghost's comment that called San Francisco &quot;San Franfreako&quot; wasn't removed? As if all of us here in Ann Arbor are the epitome of &quot;not freaky&quot;? I'm just curious where the line is between First Amendment rights and offensive comments that might violate your conversation guidelines. Truthfully, I do support his right to free speech no matter how vehemently I disagree with his opinion.
And to Bunnyabbot: I have a long laundry list of things I don't want my tax dollars to support. Can I just stop paying taxes? I don't want my tax dollars supporting ignorance and narrow minds and actions I don't believe in. Let me know when you and I both get to chose how our taxes dollars are distributed.

Lovaduck

Mon, Oct 31, 2011 : 4:50 p.m.

Sad but true---an exodus of LGBT professors would be something Conservative Republicans would welcome with open arms. Perhaps better to stay and fight, but I KNOW how hard that is. The struggle continues.

Mark

Mon, Oct 31, 2011 : 4:46 p.m.

The bill sponsors will try and tell us that all kinds of &quot;abuse&quot; is taking place, but it's really just a smokescreen for people who are against same-sex couples having any rights or benefits in our state. A committed relationship that isn't recognized legally puts those people at risk in many ways - financially, medically, socially, etc.
As a parent of a daughter that has a same-sex partner, I know exactly how they are discriminated against. There are a lot of smart, creative people that just happen to be gay. They have families, spouses, and in New York and other states, they can be legally married. Yet, in Michigan, they are not at all recognized, and the right-wing demagogues in this state have done everything possible to thwart such legal unions. I propose that anyone who thinks such a law against same-sex couples in Mi is a good idea, think of how they would like it if divorce was not recognized in all states. Oops you can't re-marry in Michigan because we don't accept that you can be divorced, even though NY does.
Unless there is a reversal with its continued assault on the common-sense legal union status of same-sex couples, Michigan is going to suffer intellectually and economically.

Buster W.

Mon, Oct 31, 2011 : 4:37 p.m.

If cost is the real reason for this, then UM (and state) could wind up paying much more because many of their replacements will have spouses and children. The additional benefits will far exceed the &quot;non-partner&quot;.

Terri

Tue, Nov 1, 2011 : 7:41 p.m.

Being &quot;against homosexuality&quot; is like being against gravity.

Rork Kuick

Mon, Oct 31, 2011 : 5:26 p.m.

Thankyou Buster, for finally injecting some numeracy into the discussion for those saying we can just replace folks that leave.
The reporter didn't challenge any of the monetary claims. For example what it costs the U is not the same as what it costs the taxpayer, who fund less of it every year.

Buster W.

Mon, Oct 31, 2011 : 4:43 p.m.

BTW, I'm actually for this bill. However, the backers need to stop masquerading on cost (which it won't do) and be honest -- they are against homosexuality. So am I.

15crown00

Mon, Oct 31, 2011 : 4:07 p.m.

same sex marriage is disgusting.if they want to &quot;live&quot; with each other fine.let them EACH get their own health care policies. for a change i agree with the law makers in Lansing.how about the University setting up a group policy for domestic partners with high deductibles and very limited coverage.
if the employees want to leave so be it.find somebody else.

Some Guy in 734

Tue, Nov 1, 2011 : 2:21 p.m.

Think about any number of the straight couples you see out and around. Now picture them--I mean REALLY picture them--on their wedding nights, doin' the do. Disgusted yet?
Fact: Any of our taxpaying neighbors, friends and relatives are just as deserving of basic rights as are any other of them. Your ick factor plain ol' doesn't play a role in that.

Loopy

Tue, Nov 1, 2011 : 12:26 a.m.

Having more than five kids is disgusting. Why don't public institutions have a limit on the number of children our tax dollars can support? By the way, that's sarcasm. No one would support a child limit, even though covering all those kids probably costs way more than covering one domestic partner. Which is why this isn't about saving money at all; it's about people who think domestic partners are &quot;yucky.&quot;

Bill

Mon, Oct 31, 2011 : 9:38 p.m.

It is amazing how narrow minded Ann Arbor can be when issues such as this are up for discussion.

a2person

Mon, Oct 31, 2011 : 5:10 p.m.

What if I find opposite-sex marriage disgusting? What if lots of people did? What if the majority of the legislators did? We could take away YOUR rights and YOUR health care!
See, who cares what you feel is disgusting? It's not up to you.

Mark

Mon, Oct 31, 2011 : 4:51 p.m.

You may find it disgusting, but you don't have to do it. If it offends your religious views, a marriage is a legal document. That's why there is a marriage license. Dog, license, car license, driver's license, etc. are legal documents issued by a governmental agency. People also found interracial marriage disgusting. Get over it.

Chase Ingersoll

Mon, Oct 31, 2011 : 4:01 p.m.

I've heard of people getting married because they need the health insurance, knowing that they have a pre-existing condition.
Check out the risk factors for a soft tissue sarcoma. I don't think the people who write or agree to be in these articles consider the slippery slope of relevant discussion that they open up when they air such personal matters on the front page.
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soft-tissue_sarcoma" rel='nofollow'>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soft-tissue_sarcoma</a>
On a lighter note, some of these are cute:
<a href="http://www.ratemyprofessors.com/ShowRatings.jsp?tid=782202&page=1" rel='nofollow'>http://www.ratemyprofessors.com/ShowRatings.jsp?tid=782202&amp;page=1</a>
And, if you want to become a missionary to Africa, from the looks of his resume, he is just the professor you'd want to have:
<a href="http://www-personal.umich.edu/~coetzee/pdfs/cv.pdf" rel='nofollow'>http://www-personal.umich.edu/~coetzee/pdfs/cv.pdf</a>

JSA

Mon, Oct 31, 2011 : 3:59 p.m.

Just out of curiosity, what prevents the University from using some of that multibillion endowment to cover the benefits? Tax dollars would not be used and I would think that would be within the scope of the proposed legislation.

peg dash fab

Tue, Nov 1, 2011 : 6:28 a.m.

what prevents it? republican fear and hatred, that's what!

SMAIVE

Mon, Oct 31, 2011 : 6:16 p.m.

I think the University would be open to your proposal. Unfortunately, the legislation includes a penalty for providing ANY domestic partnership benefits. Cover the cost from non tuition or state support and you still get dinged for 15% of your apropriations. Nope, no hidden agenda here.

MichU

Mon, Oct 31, 2011 : 3:54 p.m.

The would-be ban is small-minded and not helpful.

Dave

Mon, Oct 31, 2011 : 3:31 p.m.

Now, I typically wouldn't color myself as a left-winger, nor an activist for gay rights, and I've been supportive of Snyder's policies to-date.
But, it sounds like the rest of the Republicans drew up this bill, half-tempered in fiscal policy, half-tempered in opportunistic discontent for homosexuals. The discriminatory nature of this bill is both clear, and immoral.
Gov. Snyder, if this bill makes it to your desk, I hope you will veto it. Your decision either way will be very telling to me exactly how balanced your political platform actually is.

guyfroma2mi

Mon, Oct 31, 2011 : 3:18 p.m.

Kmd- if the state legislature was legitimately interested in cutting public employee costs, and not merely trying to attack gay families, they would do as you suggest- cut off benefits for all spouses and dependents. Think of all the money we'd save, and no one could complain that it's not &quot;fair!&quot; Until the emergency rooms were flooded with late-stage cancer patients, kids with untreated leukemia, I think it's lovely that you were able to find a job with your own benefits, but do you really think this is the model that we should be striving for- where a pregnant woman has to work right up until delivery, even if her doctor advises otherwise, and staying at home with the newborn is not an option- and beyond that is completely out of the question.

Peter Jameson

Mon, Oct 31, 2011 : 3:07 p.m.

why should the state give benefits to married/unmarried partners? shouldn't we all earn our own piece of the pie?

Charlie Brown's Ghost

Tue, Nov 1, 2011 : 1:37 p.m.

Peter, what a strange concept!

Loopy

Tue, Nov 1, 2011 : 12:23 a.m.

Why do I have to subsidize people who have 8 kids from 2 different marriages on my health plan, when I have no kids?

groland

Mon, Oct 31, 2011 : 4:54 p.m.

Right, why don't children get jobs too and earn their benefits?

a2citizen

Mon, Oct 31, 2011 : 4:10 p.m.

No. It's rather arrogant of you to suggest an able bodied person go out and get a job.

guyfroma2mi

Mon, Oct 31, 2011 : 3:05 p.m.

So much for the supposed GOP desire for a small central government and local control. With this and nearly every other measure passed by the state legislature this year, they seek to overrule decisions by democratically elected local officials and University Regents on how to spend their own money. So much for the value of &quot;life&quot; when they would very deliberately take away access to healthcare to families, even children.
SalineSara- the current system, which absolutely is ripe for abuse, had to be put in place as a stopgap policy in the aftermath of the passage of the anti-gay marriage amendment in 2004; prior to that, the City and University had much stricter requirements for receiving these benefits- one had to be a registered same-sex partner, thus legally prohibited from marrying, and living together for a certain period with shared expenses- still not perfect, but enough to discourage abuse since most straight people are still mortified at the prospect of someone thinking they're gay. To be able to retain the benefits after a very broad interpretation of voter intent by our Conservative Activist courts fought for by our Republican Attorney General, it had to be changed to allow benefits for a &quot;second qualifying adult&quot; to assure that it bore no semblance to &quot;marriage&quot; and wasn't limited to couples that don't have the option to marry. Quite dishonest, I'd have to say, to lie to the public about the intent of the amendment to get it through, quite un-Christian to immediately go after health insurance benefits for families, forcing public entities like the AAPS and U of M into this corner, and then use the fact that the system they caused the creation of can be abused as an excuse to try to do away with these benefits for good.

Bill

Mon, Oct 31, 2011 : 10:02 p.m.

@Scylding check the actual source of revenue for U of M and you might be surprised how little of their funds come from the state.

Scylding

Mon, Oct 31, 2011 : 3:30 p.m.

&quot;With this and nearly every other measure passed by the state legislature this year, they seek to overrule decisions by democratically elected local officials and University Regents on how to spend their own money.&quot;
Hey &quot;guy...&quot;, whose money? In case you hadn't noticed, the U of M, like any state school, gets boatloads of money from...(wait for it)...THE STATE! Furthermore, the students who fund the school with their tuition come from all over the state and beyond.
Very weak point.

bunnyabbot

Mon, Oct 31, 2011 : 3:01 p.m.

So what, go ahead and leave, there will be tons of people that will submit an application for your job. The people don't have to support your partner. Benefits are not guarenteed for married people of the opposite sex. Benefits are not an unaniable right for anyone, nor is a car, nor an education, nor public transportation, nor any number of other things.

Loopy

Tue, Nov 1, 2011 : 12:22 a.m.

I have a better question: Why are *they* the ones who have to leave? If the bigots don't like it, why don't they all move to a prejudiced state where they can hang on to all their money with both fists?

Dan

Mon, Oct 31, 2011 : 9:34 p.m.

There is a reason why the most successful companies and prestigious universities in the country offer domestic partnership benefits, and it isn't moral. Even the most conservative states have realized that the top talent (those who publish and attract the most funding and prestige) want to work at institutions which are not seen as discriminatory. The jobs will be filled, but as anyone involved in hiring the best of the best will tell you, they'll be filled with much less impressive individuals, and we'll all suffer for it.
Companies like Google and FedEx only think about the bottom line, and have realized that benefits are cost effective. There are a lot of immoral things about how business and universities are run, but one shouldn't let his morals get in the way of sound fiscal decisions.

hut hut

Mon, Oct 31, 2011 : 3:53 p.m.

Comparing the &quot; inalienable&quot; right (which is not the point of this article or bill) of access to health care to owning a car or any other silly comparison reduces the importance of health care making it equivalent to owning some shiny toy.
Instead of restricting access to health care for a few people and crying &quot;special rights&quot;, why not make it easier and less costly for everyone to get decent health care?
The smaller the pool, the more costly insurance becomes. By restricting access to health care for some increases the cost for everyone else, even you.

MyOpinion

Mon, Oct 31, 2011 : 3:30 p.m.

Well, bunnyabbot at UM, the married partner and related children do get health care benefits. It is the unmarried partners who don't.
In the past, UM didn't give benefits to unmarried heterosexual partners as these folks could choose to be married; unmarried same-sex partners did not have that choice.

Mr. Ed

Mon, Oct 31, 2011 : 2:58 p.m.

7 to 8 million is a lot of money. The cost of college is out of control. We need to find a solution to the cost. Is cutting benefits for homosexual partners the answer, No. Everyone should have access to healthcare. Healthcare is a right for everyone and the right thing to do for everyone. We need to look at cutting cost in the healthcare business and need better controls. The hospitals are doing a poor job at controlling cost. We need changes now. We all know the meaning behind the bill, it's about domestic partner rights and the Conservative. Lets find a solution for health care for everyone at affordable prices.

peg dash fab

Tue, Nov 1, 2011 : 6:24 a.m.

joe kidd, are you aware that the cost of health care in the US is twice that in other developed countries? and yet, by almost any measure, the quality of health care delivered in the US is lower.
so much for your claim about costs and quality.

Joe Kidd

Tue, Nov 1, 2011 : 2:48 a.m.

Healthcare is in no way, shape or form a right. The problem with healthcare is that it is expensive. You can't make it inexpensive. Cutting costs results in lowering quality. Neither political party has presented any policy that will effectively lower the cost of health care. The Affordable Health Care Act has caused premiums to increase and none of the republican party proposals will lower HC either.
To provide HC to more people will simply require huge increases in premiums or taxes. You cannot make something that is expensive by its nature inexpensive.

hut hut

Mon, Oct 31, 2011 : 2:53 p.m.

Republicans talk about &quot;job killing&quot;. Well, this is a job killer and is driving smart, educated people out of the state.
Republicans aren't interested in creating jobs, they're interested in controlling people's lives.
As much as the conservatives protest and cry about creating jobs, every proposed bill we all read about from states that elected Tea Partiers is aimed at reducing Democrats power and not creating jobs. They're far more interested in their political future than doing what's best for everyone in the USA.

Billy Buchanan

Tue, Nov 1, 2011 : 1:13 a.m.

Wake up Rip Van Winkle.

a2citizen

Mon, Oct 31, 2011 : 6:46 p.m.

Actually, it's not a job killer. If the &quot;mass exodus&quot; leads to people leaving it stands to reason those are job openings (not closings).

rusty shackelford

Mon, Oct 31, 2011 : 2:49 p.m.

By the way, a2.com, do what you have to to keep Kellie Woodhouse on staff. Timely, concise, and well-written article. Used to be the norm in news writing but not so much any more--thanks, Ms. Woodhouse.

Leyna

Mon, Oct 31, 2011 : 2:24 p.m.

I just moved here with my partner who's in a doctorate program at UM. Domestic partner benefits played a huge role in our decision to come here. We're from Alabama where we really just didn't have any rights at all and we wanted something better. The real kicker is that the University of Alabama just approved domestic partner benefits and now we're facing the possibility of having ours revoked. It's incredibly sad to think that while Alabama is moving forward, we just signed up for more of the same.

skfina2

Mon, Oct 31, 2011 : 6:46 p.m.

Welcome to Michissippi!

David Briegel

Mon, Oct 31, 2011 : 2:46 p.m.

Michigan, the Mississippi/Alabama of the North!!

David Briegel

Mon, Oct 31, 2011 : 2:20 p.m.

There go the TeaPublicon extremists harming the job creators!!

alternativeview99

Mon, Oct 31, 2011 : 2:18 p.m.

What a mess!
A couple gets married in New York and then moves to Michigan. But, they are no longer married in Michigan? So, in essence, they must check the laws of each state to determine whether or not they are married when they cross the borders. This is indeed a burden restricting their rights to travel freely between states that is not imposed on other people.
Do these same rules apply in the case of minors getting married? If you cross state lines to get married in a state where the child need only be 15, (or even 13) does that mean the marriage is not valid in the other state? Gosh, I seem to remember a lot of old Hollywood movies about young lovers eloping to other states so they could get married. What gives?
Unfortunately, I do believe this action is motivated by a desire to reduce spending.....which I would like to characterize as &quot;business greed&quot; and a desire to destroy the middle class.
It is one of the first steps designed to take health care away from the working class. I believe that if we were to look to what drives this legislature and Snyder to do this, we would find some connection to ALEC.
My point is, same-sex couples are being attacked first because they will evoke less sympathy from those members of the middle class who are probably next in line to have their own benefits taken away. It's how you get people to support laws and actions, (through their votes or acquiesence in action taken by others), that in reality harms them.

Loopy

Tue, Nov 1, 2011 : 12:59 a.m.

It's the same logic as those who whine about people who have better pensions and benefits than they do. Instead of fighting to better their own profession or workplace, they'd rather tear down the livelihoods of people they perceive as &quot;having it easier.&quot; It's a real schoolyard mentality out there, and I thought we were all grownups. Apparently not. No one ever made their own job better by diminishing someone else's; in fact, when you work to lower someone else's standard of living, yours goes right down with it.

David Briegel

Mon, Oct 31, 2011 : 2:21 p.m.

Everyone is under attack and so many don't even realize their fate!

a2citizen

Mon, Oct 31, 2011 : 2:03 p.m.

Everybody is replaceable.
Don't let the door hit you in your backside on the way out.

a2citizen

Tue, Nov 1, 2011 : 2:54 a.m.

Amber, I'm not proposing to get rid of &quot;all&quot; the professors. I'm inviting the half dozen that think they are irreplaceable to leave.
Public employees that think they cannot be replaced. Reminds me of the air traffic controller strike.
And as to your comment &quot;.... U of M brings plenty of money to our local economy...&quot; Yes, and that money is mostly taxpayer dollars, simply a redistribution of wealth.

Amber

Tue, Nov 1, 2011 : 2:39 a.m.

If you get rid of all of the great professors at U of M, good luck continuing to have one of the best universities in the world. U of M brings plenty of money to our local economy, and if you're the one teaching the students, I want out.

Bill

Mon, Oct 31, 2011 : 9:57 p.m.

Welcome to small minded USA!

HaeJee

Mon, Oct 31, 2011 : 6:02 p.m.

That is the same mentality that people have that discriminate against others.

a2citizen

Mon, Oct 31, 2011 : 5:09 p.m.

Hut hut: I am indifferent to anyone leaving or staying, except for those state employees that think they cannot be replaced.
swift: My lack of compassion is driven by the headline &quot;Mass Exodus&quot;. Everyone is replaceable. Especially state employees.

tom swift jr.

Mon, Oct 31, 2011 : 4:32 p.m.

Nice comment. Is that lack of compassion driven by your politics, your religion, or out of lack of knowledge and information.

hut hut

Mon, Oct 31, 2011 : 4:23 p.m.

Now that's a real Michigan welcome for you. Why not just add ethnic minorities or poor people to your list of those who you want to leave.

kmd

Mon, Oct 31, 2011 : 1:58 p.m.

To Andries and his partner, If you feel you must look for a new job, do so. Maybe your partner should find a job that offers him his own benefits, and that would help your situation. We tax payers, (all of us), are stretched to the max. My husband does not supply my benefits, I had to find a job with benefits for myself. You are an educated individual...professor's do very well monitarily...maybe, you could buy and provide your partner his own health care premium insurance policy. Each of us needs to take responsibility for ourselves, that is, if we the means. I don't come from the world of Academia like you do....I know that you are bright and I am sure resourceful. I wish you and your partner all the best....God bless you.

John Gee

Tue, Nov 1, 2011 : 6:48 p.m.

@ Joe Kidd: Oh, I see your argument in this instance depends on the continued existence and success of an Act that the same people supporting this bill (i.e., right-wing extremist Republicans) are committed to tearing down. Interesting.

Joe Kidd

Tue, Nov 1, 2011 : 2:52 a.m.

Groland, I believe the Affordable Health Care Act requires insurance companies to cover people with pre-existing conditions with no increase in premiums because of the illness.

Bill

Mon, Oct 31, 2011 : 9:55 p.m.

Yes, most tax payers are stretched to the max today but fortunately many of us still have compassion for others. Perhaps you have been fortunate enough not to have cancer or you would realize, as has been pointed out by others, that a cancer survivor will have a difficult time in obtaining insurance coverage due to &quot;pre-existing conditions.&quot;

speravi

Mon, Oct 31, 2011 : 9:36 p.m.

Do you generally speak this way to cancer survivors to their face, as a rule?

groland

Mon, Oct 31, 2011 : 4:52 p.m.

Unfortunately, anyone with cancer will have a very hard time finding insurance at all.

MIKE

Mon, Oct 31, 2011 : 3:36 p.m.

KMD offered a new perspective, and some great suggestions, and you belittle her? How noble of of YOU!

David Briegel

Mon, Oct 31, 2011 : 2:22 p.m.

And you wish to inflict your obvious hardship onto everyone else?
How noble!

USRepublic

Mon, Oct 31, 2011 : 1:51 p.m.

This &quot;problem&quot; will take care of itself........
If we simply wait a few hundred thousand years for the human gene pool to evolve.......

Mark

Mon, Oct 31, 2011 : 5:02 p.m.

At the rate the planet is going, I don't give us 1000 years.

Terri

Mon, Oct 31, 2011 : 1:48 p.m.

It's the Michigan Difference!

arborani

Mon, Oct 31, 2011 : 3:28 p.m.

Good shot, Terri. Wish I'd said that.

information please

Mon, Oct 31, 2011 : 1:25 p.m.

Unfortunately the real cost of offering these benefits is always overestimated due to a lack of awareness about the imputed income issue.
The full cost of these partner benefits is added to the employee's income, and the employee is taxed on that full amount. See the taxation information at the bottom of this page: <a href="http://benefits.umich.edu/eligibility/oqa.html" rel='nofollow'>http://benefits.umich.edu/eligibility/oqa.html</a>
Here's an example from the UM Benefits site:
&quot;Example A: If you enroll your OQA and his or her child(ren), your imputed income would be the difference between the cost for You Only coverage and Family coverage. If you enroll in U-M Premier Care, your monthly imputed income (DPI) would be $857.00. If paid biweekly, your imputed income (DPI) would be $428.50.&quot;
That means that the employee would owe taxes on an additional $10,000+ in income, in addition to the costs of co-pays, deductibles, and premiums. This is due to federal and state tax law, not the employer offering the benefits.
This keeps the number of enrollees down significantly, as the coverage is much more expensive than it is for legally married heterosexual couples.
Truly progressive employers that are concerned with equitable benefits &quot;gross up&quot; the salaries of those taking advantage of domestic partner benefits. See these sites for more info: <a href="http://www.hrc.org/resources/entry/domestic-partner-benefits-grossing-up-to-offset-imputed-income-tax" rel='nofollow'>http://www.hrc.org/resources/entry/domestic-partner-benefits-grossing-up-to-offset-imputed-income-tax</a>
<a href="http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2010/01/29/syracuse" rel='nofollow'>http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2010/01/29/syracuse</a>

Basic Bob

Mon, Oct 31, 2011 : 9:49 p.m.

Tax on the Imputed income (15% for most people) is paid to the federal government. Roughly 4% goes back to the state. If paying less than 20% of the actual cost is unfair, you have a problem.

rusty shackelford

Mon, Oct 31, 2011 : 1:02 p.m.

&quot;It is not the responsibility of taxpayers to support the roommates and unmarried partners of public employees,&quot; Agema said&quot;
&quot;Roommates!?&quot; Talk about literally adding insult to injury. Shows better than anything the real motives here: gay relationships are not real relationships in the minds of the bills proponents--gay people are not entirely &quot;real&quot; people.
Also, why should marriage be privileged this way in the first place? It's a huge benefit granted to some employees that has nothing to do with their skill at their jobs. How about every employee can choose 1 person--spouse, &quot;roommate,&quot; sister, whatever, to join their insurance?

Gorc

Mon, Oct 31, 2011 : 1:02 p.m.

Mass exodus?
How many gay employees are at U of M?
The article quoted a legislator saying 618 would be effected. But that can include partners and children who don't work for U of M. So what's the real number that accounts for the &quot;masses&quot;?
Don't miss construe my question...I support same sex benefits and marriage.
I'm critizing a2.com for using an extream headline to get attention.

Clark Frye

Wed, Nov 16, 2011 : 4:27 p.m.

Hey, Gorc:
I agree that it might be using colorful, but the small number they listed as affected are the LGBT staff with partners and families; surely the bill will also have a negative effect on those LGBT employees that would like benefits for their potential future family should they settle down with someone.

Joe Kidd

Tue, Nov 1, 2011 : 3 a.m.

I had the same thought: How many? While only seven signed a letter to the Governor, I wonder where the masses are. I also doubt that this will cause a massive rebuke of the UM by heterosexual professionals who may still seek employment here. There is more than the political/cultural atmosphere that attracts staff.
Also this could be reversed in the future per the will of he electorate.

Dave

Mon, Oct 31, 2011 : 9:50 p.m.

&quot;And there are many others just as capable who will fill their absence.&quot;
Just because there are others that are 'just as capable' doesn't mean they're better qualified. I think its pretty logical to say that keeping our options open by not adopting policies that constrict the Univeristy's competitiveness in the market will give us access to the best candidates possible. Economically, the bill does not stand on solid ground.

Gorc

Mon, Oct 31, 2011 : 9:45 p.m.

Your missing my point....I doubt masses would leave a good paying job at the university. Good luck finding another job in this economy. And a2.com needs to be more realistic....masses....give me a break.

SMAIVE

Mon, Oct 31, 2011 : 6:02 p.m.

And there are many others just as capable who will fill their absence.
Seriously? This is just another reason why not to choose Michigan. No employment, financial strapped schools, regressive politics, hidden agendas. Yep this sure is becoming a land of milk and honey!

Charlie Brown's Ghost

Mon, Oct 31, 2011 : 2:05 p.m.

And there are many others just as capable who will fill their absence.

Meg

Mon, Oct 31, 2011 : 1:15 p.m.

It's not solely LGBT employees who might see this as a reason to leave. There are many straight people who also don't want to stay in a state that hates their friends and neighbors.

Charlie Brown's Ghost

Mon, Oct 31, 2011 : 12:40 p.m.

&quot;Rights for same sex couples in Michigan appear to be 'moving in the opposite direction' of most communities.&quot;
Perhaps if by &quot;most communities&quot; you mean, New York, San Franfreako, Berkeley, and Madison, but no, not &quot;most communities&quot; as in most communities.
&quot;If bill 4770 passes there will likely be a large exodus of professors who leave the university.&quot;
So what you're saying is a lot of professors are gay. How to straight professors feel about that generalization? By the way, you can't scare us by telling us we could end up with fewer professors.

Basic Bob

Mon, Oct 31, 2011 : 9:45 p.m.

In all likelihood, over 90% of the &quot;Best and Brightest&quot; are not homosexual. So we are not chasing out all of those great minds.
And &quot;productive members&quot;... of a university? They are generally not defined by their producivity. Or maybe you mean the productiviy of the partner who is unable to work. Oh, forget it.

speravi

Mon, Oct 31, 2011 : 9:33 p.m.

Mr. Ghost, would you have proudly made this same argument in Alabama in the 1950's, do you think?
Do you think Alabama's discriminatory policies gave them a high quality education with professors who had no qualms working in such an environment?

Charlie Brown's Ghost

Mon, Oct 31, 2011 : 2:03 p.m.

I think there are plenty of great professors of all opinions. We will have all the great (top-tier) professors we need no matter what. This is just a red herring and scare tactic.

Cheri

Mon, Oct 31, 2011 : 1:55 p.m.

Many professors are supporters of human rights. It has nothing to do with being gay or straight, it has to do with what people feel is right and wrong.

Meg

Mon, Oct 31, 2011 : 1:37 p.m.

No. What I'm saying is that top-tier researchers have options about where to go, and why would they come to a state with hate laws on the books? Or do you only care about what happens to you personally, and not to your neighbors and colleagues?

Charlie Brown's Ghost

Mon, Oct 31, 2011 : 1:34 p.m.

So, what you're saying is top-tier researchers are mostly gay, or at least gay in a large proportion. That sounds like hate speech to me.

Meg

Mon, Oct 31, 2011 : 1:14 p.m.

Michigan is a top-tier university that attracts a lot of federal funding because it attracts top-tier researchers. Without the university, there is no Ann Arbor. If an in-demand researcher has a choice of a state that proudly wears its reactionary homophobia on its sleeve and one that doesn't, what state do you think is going to win out? What do you think that does to the funding that the researcher might have brought to the University, and the jobs that funding supports?

Nature lover

Mon, Oct 31, 2011 : 12:37 p.m.

Pure Michigan. Pure hatred.

Chase Ingersoll

Mon, Oct 31, 2011 : 12:35 p.m.

It's time the government stopped picking WINNERS in the health care service marketplace (those with tax payer financed jobs), thereby inflating the cost of basic health care for those of us LOSERS who not only pay taxes for the benefits of those receiving the non-taxed health care services, but then have to pay for the inflated cost of health care services for ourselves out of our own pocket.
Government manipulation of the market, against the PERCENT of us who are paying and not personally benefiting is the issue, not the sexual orientation of the people receiving benefits.

speravi

Mon, Oct 31, 2011 : 9:30 p.m.

Or, you could gather the courage to unionize your own workplace and demand the same benefits.
Personally, I have never seen economic cowardice as a virtue. &quot;But, but... the employers might leave! They said so! Another pay cut, please...?&quot; Our ancestors had more courage than that when they were backed in a corner. They also appear to have wanted everyone to benefit instead of taking away that from others which they themselves had no courage to get.
By the way, you personally benefit very time ANY person gets health care. If you think the next untreated mega-flu virus will only touch the &quot;undeserving uninsured&quot; and pass right by the virtuous conservative taxpayer because -well- it just ought to, you are in a bit of denial. Healthcare for everyone protects us all, especially protection for those whose jobs make them deal with the public on a regular basis.

SMAIVE

Mon, Oct 31, 2011 : 12:20 p.m.

SalineSara,
if you want to reinforce your pov, why are married individuals allowed an additional benefit based on marital status. As a single individual, I'm entitled to the same compensation. If saving money is the goal, then lets get real and remove coverage for all spouses.

Loopy

Tue, Nov 1, 2011 : 1:15 a.m.

Is it offered even if the couple in question is in their late 50s and on their second or third marriage? That is, no breeding?

Dave

Mon, Oct 31, 2011 : 8:27 p.m.

Because those additional benefits are provided to married employee's to promote/support them having a family. Be careful with your use of &quot;entitled.&quot; Besides, I've never heard of any company who provides free family coverage/benefits to their employees; they always have to pay an additional premium out of their own pocket.
And let's not get real by axing coverage for more people who need it; let's simply make it (or maintain it as) an equal opportunity; after all, it's all about supporting the employees and the people that matter to them.

2WheelsGood

Mon, Oct 31, 2011 : 12:16 p.m.

What a headline! &quot;Mass Exodus&quot;? Wow, that sounds like U-M might just fold. I'm all for same-sex benefits, but the hyperbole is completely unnecessary.

zax

Mon, Oct 31, 2011 : 12:14 p.m.

How would it go over if Synder did something truly fair and only covered the person working at the university? no spouses, partners, or children?

It has been considered quite a bit and been imposed in some places. Here is one in Michigan. In this case the HC costs for this employee and his wife and child reached $30,000.

Mush Room

Mon, Oct 31, 2011 : 2:32 p.m.

This is in fact the fair way to approach public employer based health insurance. If this was done, I think we'd be taking another look at a Canadian style single payer system that covers everyone.

cinnabar7071

Mon, Oct 31, 2011 : 12:11 p.m.

&quot;Woodall may lose his health care coverage if the bill proposing the elimination of domestic partner benefits passes.&quot;
Why doesnt Woodall do what the rest of us do and get a job that pays healthcare. My employer pays my healthcare, not my partners employer. Its really too bad we dont live in a make belive world with unicorns and healthcare for all.

Joe Kidd

Tue, Nov 1, 2011 : 3:14 a.m.

Craigjjs, in 2009 the US Census Bureau reported 16.7% of the population was uninsured. That number may be too high based on income. Many unemployed people have low incomes that will allow them to qualify for Medicaid. They just have not filed for it. Thus they are &quot;insured.&quot; There are also millions of people who make in the range of $80,000 and above who, for personal reasons do not buy insurance. Perhaps they wish to spend on other things, like houses, autos, boats, second homes etc.
The numbers have always been questionable. Also of the insured there are many who are insured but feel there costs are too high. But the uninsured is no where near one third. If the 17% is correct, then 83% is insured and most do not want their costs to increase, thus the huge opposition to the govt plans to extend HC to the uninsured.

HaeJee

Mon, Oct 31, 2011 : 6:01 p.m.

His partner will never be able to qualify to buy individual healthcare insurance due to pre-existing condition. He will either have to find a job that provides healthcare (if he is able to work) or be dependent on his partner's healthcare coverage.
Healthcare coverage for all exists in many civilized countries...... and no, they don't have unicorns.

craigjjs

Mon, Oct 31, 2011 : 1:09 p.m.

&quot;Do all insurers provide health insurance? Of course not, most do not these days. How about the self-employed, independent contractors and business owners? What insurer buys our insurance?&quot;
Should have been:
&quot;Do all employers provide health insurance? Of course not, most do not these days. How about the self-employed, independent contractors and business owners? What employer buys our insurance?&quot;

craigjjs

Mon, Oct 31, 2011 : 1:07 p.m.

Do what the &quot;rest of us do.&quot; Who are the rest of us? Roughly 1/3 of our population has no insurance. Do all insurers provide health insurance? Of course not, most do not these days. How about the self-employed, independent contractors and business owners? What insurer buys our insurance? It seems that you are the one living in a make believe world with unicorns. Actually, most of the real world does provide healthcare for all.

alternative_acres

Mon, Oct 31, 2011 : 12:45 p.m.

&quot;who is in remission after an exhausting battle with soft tissue sarcoma, a rare type of cancer.&quot;
Yes, let's get all those who suffered with horrendous illness back to work immediately! They are just SO LAZY, huh?

travelslightly

Mon, Oct 31, 2011 : 12:07 p.m.

If the reason to deny benefits is reinforce the family, marriage and morality, then everyone should be allowed to marry. Which is the bigger moral problem (and might eliminate a larger class of individuals and so bunches more money), a couple that wants to be together and get married or those that have been married and divorce and then remarried. Maybe anyone who's ever been divorced should be denied benefits, too. What about anyone that has gotten a speeding ticket? Where (and how) do you draw a line between those who &quot;deserve&quot; and those who don't? How will you feel if it happens to you?

discgolfgeek

Mon, Oct 31, 2011 : 11:48 a.m.

Let's be real here. This is more about our legislature's disapproval of homosexuality than saving money. Churches should have the right to refuse gay marriage if that is within their doctrine but gays should be allowed to enter a civil union and obtain all the rights that marriage affords heterosexual couples. I get so tired of people trying to impose their morals on other people.

Phillip Farber

Tue, Nov 1, 2011 : 2:07 p.m.

@Joe Kidd homosexuality is neither a moral choice nor a belief system. At least not any more than heterosexuality is.

Joe Kidd

Tue, Nov 1, 2011 : 3:17 a.m.

Morals or belief system? Couldn't it be argued that the gay/lesbian community is imposing its morals/belief system on the rest of the population as well?

David Briegel

Mon, Oct 31, 2011 : 2:48 p.m.

They put their hand on the constitution and swore to uphold their bible!

murph

Mon, Oct 31, 2011 : 11:46 a.m.

At a time when the Governor is listing &quot;brain drain&quot; as a challenge to Michigan's economic health, singling out people and asking them to leave the state for who they are seems like a questionable economic development choice. Legislation like this chases away residents who are job hunting nationally or further, and, in the long run, is unlikely to save any money: the University and other public employers will just have to increase salaries and other benefits to remain competitive in the face of their &quot;savings&quot; on partner benefits.
It's not just this legislation, either. For example, Michigan's failure to enact second parent adoption legislation gives new families a reason to start trying to move to a state where they can either marry or adopt each others' children.
Chasing away human resources is not the right way to run an economic recovery.

The Black Stallion3

Mon, Oct 31, 2011 : 11:37 a.m.

This is a free country......If you are not happy where you are, please feel free to move on. The tax payers of this state do not feel they should shoulder the burden of paying for non married couples insurance. Try California, they may feel differently.

Charlie Brown's Ghost

Tue, Nov 1, 2011 : 1:34 p.m.

Also, johnny, economic reason makes sense. Homosexuals participate in high-risk behavior. This is why they are automatic rule-outs for being organ donors.
Insurance for them will cost more. What do liberals give as the reason we should force people to wear motorcycle helmets? It will raise the price of insurance for all of us because their injuries will be greater. Well, here's the same reasoning back at you.

Charlie Brown's Ghost

Tue, Nov 1, 2011 : 1:27 p.m.

johnnya2, the Constitution of the United States specifies which powers belong to the Federal government and delegates the rest to the states. The original colonies, having spent a lot of money and lives throwing-off an oppressive central government, were very timid about giving powers to a new one. However, they saw the value in a new central government providing some services, such as national defense, on the behalf of the whole because it's more efficient. The problem is that liberals think in terms of centralized power - that the federal government allows the states to have certain powers. The reality is that the states allowed the federal government to have certain powers, and they retain the rest for themselves. That was the design from the beginning, and if it were not in the Constitution, most states would have considered it pointless to even send delegates to the Convention.
So an individual state choosing to do something a different way than another is not succession, it is the very design. It is what makes this a unique country. The people of Michigan are choosing to do it this way. Other states may not. One decade ago I chose not to live in a state overloaded with progressives and their economically-damaging policies. It was Michigan's right to do things their way, I was my right and responsibility to my family to do move, and it is your right as well.

a2citizen

Tue, Nov 1, 2011 : 3:25 a.m.

johnnya2: carter was president when Michigan raised it's drinking age to 21 (1978).

johnnya2

Mon, Oct 31, 2011 : 10:41 p.m.

&quot;t is not hatred not to want to support their actions financially, especially after liberalism has devastated our local economy, as it has.&quot;
another idiot supporting lies front he right wing. The LOCAL economy run by liberals has the LOWEST unemployment and the best economy in the state. The conservatives have destroyed the country with TRILLION dollar tax breaks fro the real estate industry, the oil industry and the Haliburton type companies.
The VAST majority of the people want the US out of Iraq, and Afghaistan. MY tax dollars go there too. The whole tax dollar argument is a lie because int he overall scope it is mere pennies.
By the way, is divorce immoral? (Rush Limbaugh)Is cheating on your wife immoral? (Newt) Is propositioning pages immoral? (Mark Foley)
The party of &quot;morality&quot; my butt

johnnya2

Mon, Oct 31, 2011 : 10:34 p.m.

Charlies Browns ghost you are a blatant liar. The person who SPONSORED this bill says it is EXACTLY because of economic reasons. Your tirade about what the whole states have different laws is stupid. Based on that premise you must support succession, and must think Ronald Reagan a horrible person, since it was HIS administration that FORCED every state to increase the drinking age to 21. You must also hate Richard Nixon, who brought about the DEA. Why shouldn't any state have the right to do what they want. So lets be honest, the right wing is the one who wants to control people, includding but not limited to what they do in their bedroom.

Bill

Mon, Oct 31, 2011 : 9:43 p.m.

Perhaps the tax payers don't want to pay for the insurance of married spouses. Why should we pay for a married spouse, let them get a job and get their own benefits, then everyone can be treated equally.

Scylding

Mon, Oct 31, 2011 : 6:26 p.m.

Good on ya, Black Stallion!
@HaeJee. Make more than I do, do you? Ooh, that shuts me down, man! However, I feel pretty confident that the 1 percenters (of which I admit I am not one) all make a whole lot more than you do, and pay perhaps hundreds of times in tax what you pay. Does that mean their opinion should count more than yours? Go tell the Occupy people that and see if you make it out of the camp without being violated in some way.

The Black Stallion3

Mon, Oct 31, 2011 : 6:11 p.m.

@Scylding......Very well said....Thank You

HaeJee

Mon, Oct 31, 2011 : 5:53 p.m.

I feel pretty confident that I pay more taxes than you do and I couldn't disagree with you more. We need to keep employed educated people in this state and stop discriminating against homosexuals. I am more scared of people with mentality like yours, than any other group.

Scylding

Mon, Oct 31, 2011 : 5:04 p.m.

@Groland. Many of us are perfectly ready to take our chances. You might consider, also, that there are many bright, creative, talented people who don't want to be surrounded by PC group-thinkers who want to pay for all kinds of free things that sound great to many but are bankrupting the state. The talent level will probably stay the same, they just won't all vote the way you want them to.

groland

Mon, Oct 31, 2011 : 4:51 p.m.

it is a free country, that is the point. Michigan will lose a lot of very talented people. The best and brightest will leave first because they will have more options. Is this what you want? benefits evolved in a competitive market. if we do not provide competitive benefits, we cannot recruit the best people.

Scylding

Mon, Oct 31, 2011 : 4:07 p.m.

Um, @Dave, TBS wasn't telling people to leave because they were criticizing his opinion. He was merely pointing out that they have the freedom to pursue their happiness elsewhere, which, I point out, is guaranteed by the Constitution...unlike health bennies.

Dave

Mon, Oct 31, 2011 : 3:52 p.m.

BlackStallion: When people criticize your opinion, you don't tell them to 'get out.' You be a mature adult and discuss grievances or just ignore them. Condescension doesn't fix the issue or resolve the debate.

Scylding

Mon, Oct 31, 2011 : 3:13 p.m.

As TBS points out, there are other states where the people have elected legislatures that are more liberal in this area, so go there. By the way, take a look at their finances (California's bonds are now junk bonds) and you will understand why many of us do not want to go down the road they have traveled. As far as the brain drain goes, there are plenty of talented people who will submit their resumes to replace any professor who feels he or she must leave U of M to keep partner bennies. They will get hundreds of apps per job.
@ Meg, some people would consider it hatred when people like you mock their value system, so keep the hyberbole down, k? It is not hatred to consider many of the things same-sex people do immoral, and it is not hatred not to want to support their actions financially, especially after liberalism has devastated our local economy, as it has.
@Cheri, there is no &quot;right&quot; to bennies. You lefties love to run around talking about people's rights to all kinds of things to which they have no right. There is no constitutional right to health-care benefits, to having a house, to having dinner, even for having a place to send your kid to school on the public dime. Next time you are tempted to use an &quot;R word,&quot; think &quot;responsibility.&quot;

Cheri

Mon, Oct 31, 2011 : 1:53 p.m.

If I could afford to leave this state and its hateful attitudes, I would. As it stands, I did not buy a &quot;McMansion&quot; or anywhere near out of what I could afford. (In fact, we bought our house on the idea that either of us could be laid off at any time, and it's what we can afford on one salary and still afford to eat and pay our other bills and continue to save.) Unfortunately, we're now upside down on the house. Yes, since we set things up so we can afford to pay the house payments and bills on one salary, we could technically just leave and continue to make payments until we got lucky enough to sell, but that's not the American Dream my house purchase was.
I also bought here because I thought as a state we were growing. We're not. We're shrinking and taking away rights.

Meg

Mon, Oct 31, 2011 : 1:35 p.m.

Exactly. Which is why the question is really why anyone would choose a hateful state over one that isn't. If you think it's about money, you're very, very wrong.

Charlie Brown's Ghost

Mon, Oct 31, 2011 : 1:26 p.m.

Some people don't base what right and wrong on whether it's financially beneficial. Some people have a little more depth than that.

Meg

Mon, Oct 31, 2011 : 1:11 p.m.

And Michigan can afford to lose productive members of the community to a less hateful state why?

Charlie Brown's Ghost

Mon, Oct 31, 2011 : 12:50 p.m.

TBS is right, and this is the way our country was designed to work. States compete against each other. If a citizen doesn't like the way one state is doing things, he has the ability to try to change that or go join a state that does things the way he likes. Our founders knew this country could not please everyone with one set of rules. This isn't why the states exist, but it is, by design, the way they - and their people - retain their individuality.
The left hates this concept, because until all laws and all control are national, they (the supposed keepers of tolerance) can't force us to live the way and believe the way they want us to.

David Paris

Mon, Oct 31, 2011 : 12:28 p.m.

People like you and me would have the pittance to pay for any and every social program that came along if it weren't for the mortgage &amp; banking industries raping and pillaging of the 99%. How about if all those who oppose benefits to same sex partners, which is already on the books, just pick up and move to Arizona? Sounds easy enough, don't you think?

skigrl50

Mon, Oct 31, 2011 : noon

Who says the taxpayers don't feel they should pay for non married couples insurance? It seems to me it is the legislature trying to cram it down our throats. They would be married if our state would let them...

skigrl50

Mon, Oct 31, 2011 : 11:27 a.m.

There are rules in the schools against bullying, but there don't seem to be any in our legislature...

SalineSara

Mon, Oct 31, 2011 : 11:17 a.m.

So what is to stop straights from pairing up just to get the benefits?
If ALL were allowed to add one additional person on their healthcare and pay the full premium or accept reduced salary I'd be ok with this.
It seems this is a system prime for abuse.

peg dash fab

Tue, Nov 1, 2011 : 6:11 a.m.

this bill is not being considered because it addresses abuse. it is being considered because haters gotta hate. this is how they do it.

Tony Livingston

Mon, Oct 31, 2011 : 3 p.m.

What about married people who abuse it? I have a friend who did not file for a divorce for years even though she and her husband lived in different states. The reason? He needed the health insurance. Straight people can marry and unmarry an unlimited number of times for any reason they choose. Each spouse is entitled to this insurance as are their children.

DonBee

Mon, Oct 31, 2011 : 2:32 p.m.

I could rent someone a room, and then put them on my health care at the end of 6 months according to this link Ms. Wilkie.
I am in favor of allowing anyone to be &quot;married&quot; under civil law and to allow any &quot;marriage&quot; to be covered by benefits.
I do not draw the line at man/woman, man/man, or woman/woman, I would also allow multiple marriages if they fit a person's ethical, moral or religious make up.
I put &quot;marriage&quot; in quotes because some people prefer &quot;civil union&quot; and other use less polite terms.
The rules are flawed because the state laws are flawed. Fix the laws, then the rules.

Marilyn Wilkie

Mon, Oct 31, 2011 : 1:52 p.m.

I may be missing something here but it looks like you could enroll a roommate (and their children) who you are not in a relationship with according to this information. They just need to have lived under your roof for 6 months. But as the previous commenter said, there could be financial consequences, which the other person could cover I suppose.
link is here: <a href="http://benefits.umich.edu/eligibility/oqa.html" rel='nofollow'>http://benefits.umich.edu/eligibility/oqa.html</a> .

information please

Mon, Oct 31, 2011 : 1:12 p.m.

Because these benefits are extremely expensive from a tax perspective. The full cost of these partner benefits is added to the employee's income, and the employee is taxed on that full amount. See the taxation information at the bottom of this page: <a href="http://benefits.umich.edu/eligibility/oqa.html" rel='nofollow'>http://benefits.umich.edu/eligibility/oqa.html</a>
Here's an example:
Example A: If you enroll your OQA and his or her child(ren), your imputed income would be the difference between the cost for You Only coverage and Family coverage. If you enroll in U-M Premier Care, your monthly imputed income (DPI) would be $857.00. If paid biweekly, your imputed income (DPI) would be $428.50.
That means that the employee would owe taxes on an additional $10,000 in income, in addition to the costs of co-pays, deductibles, and premiums.
This keeps the number of enrollees down significantly, as the coverage is much more expensive than it is for legally married heterosexual couples.
Unfortunately the real cost of offering these benefits is always overestimated due to a lack of awareness about the imputed income issue.

travelslightly

Mon, Oct 31, 2011 : 12:15 p.m.

If you're concerned about unmarried couples abusing the system, then let them marry.

Alan Goldsmith

Mon, Oct 31, 2011 : 11:08 a.m.

Thanks to all the Ann Arbor Democrats who, with their silence, support or financial contributions, now have us at the point where our Republican Governor will have the choice of vetoing this hate law. One of those issues media just forgot to focus on locally when they were showering the nerd with wine and roses during the election campaign.

Wolf's Bane

Tue, Nov 1, 2011 : 11:03 a.m.

Snydex is hardly a nerd, but the firgure head for the top 1% of Michigan. This is not new. Also, it is really dumb to legislate social and cultural issues.

Billy Buchanan

Tue, Nov 1, 2011 : 1:01 a.m.

Lets call it a love law instead of hate law.

Arborcomment

Mon, Oct 31, 2011 : 7:25 p.m.

Why don't the Synder haters just quit prognosticating for their own political agenda just long enough to see if this bill even makes the governor's desk and what he does with it?

Laura J

Mon, Oct 31, 2011 : 11:01 a.m.

As a lesbian woman in a comitted relationship that voted for Gov. Snyder, I implore him to search his own self and realize that this is a bill about hate and exclusion and not about saving money. Please do not take benefit away from families that deserve them. I personally do not use benefits at U of M or any other state funded entity, but do have friends that do. My partner and I currently pay for two separate policies for ourselves and our 6 children because we cannot get benefits as a family. It is a sad day when 2 women or men who love each other are battled by people that are scared and ignorant.

John Gee

Tue, Nov 1, 2011 : 2:38 p.m.

Yikes--another lesbian who votes Republican. And you wonder why you and your family have a hard time obtaining health care coverage. You reap what you sow, but sadly it's the folks at UM who are in danger of losing their benefits who stand to suffer.

peg dash fab

Tue, Nov 1, 2011 : 6:08 a.m.

yo, dave, when did telling the truth become political ruthlessness? seems to me snyder, who lied his way into office, is the ruthless one.
laura j, i feel for you, but where you ask snyder to search his heart, i ask you to research political candidates before voting. all you needed to know about snyder is that he ran on the republican ticket. everything since then has been perfectly predictable. good luck to you, your partner, and your kids: rick snyder and the republican establishment hate and condemn you.

Peter

Mon, Oct 31, 2011 : 6:54 p.m.

Snyder will literally (literally literally, not figuratively) let people die to garner favor with the right wing. Do you think that's the kind of character we need?

Dave

Mon, Oct 31, 2011 : 3:46 p.m.

Just watching Bernero speak, he seemed to reek of political ruthlessness...
You may not care for Snyder, and I won't question your opinion as to why, but regardless, Bernero does not possess the character we need for office.

jeanarrett

Mon, Oct 31, 2011 : 12:56 p.m.

Ditto on the Virg Bernaro thing--when will people STOP voting against their own interests?

David Paris

Mon, Oct 31, 2011 : 12:13 p.m.

I guarantee you that Virg Bernero would have vetoed this bill had he won the election for governor. Maybe next time?

Urban Sombrero

Mon, Oct 31, 2011 : 10:49 a.m.

&quot;It is not the responsibility of taxpayers to support the roommates and unmarried partners of public employees,&quot; Agema said in a statement.
How ignorant. They're only &quot;roomates&quot; and &quot;unmarried partners&quot; because Michigan doesn't allow same-sex marriage. They have no choice to be otherwise.
I really hope this incredibly discriminatory law dies before it hits the Governor's desk. I have no doubt he won't veto it. It's sad all around.

Dave

Mon, Oct 31, 2011 : 3:40 p.m.

My gut impression says he would veto. At least, my optimistic gut impression thereof.
It will tell alot to those of us still sitting on the fence about him: confirm his professed middle ground or call it into serious question.

Urban Sombrero

Mon, Oct 31, 2011 : 10:50 a.m.

Erm...bill. Not law.

Glen S.

Mon, Oct 31, 2011 : 10:48 a.m.

For the tiny of money this bill *might* save, eliminating partner benefits would send a terrible message, not only to existing employees and potential recruits -- but also to straight allies, friends and family members -- that educated, talented workers (who happen to be gay or lesbian) are no longer welcome to work at Michigan universities.
But then, this seems to have little to do with dollars and cents -- and much more to do with certain Michigan legislators promoting a right-wing social agenda that flies in the face of what a majority of Michigan voters actually support, and which will do absolutely nothing to help fix our desperate economy.
Since Governor Snyder and the Republicans took power in the last election, Michigan's economy has continued to sputter -- and the unemployment rate has actually continued to rise. Until that changes, Michigan voters should demand that their legislators focus exclusively on fixing the economy and creating jobs instead of wasting their time on &quot;social&quot; legislation that only aims to satisfy a very small (and extreme) segment of their political base.

Bcar

Tue, Nov 1, 2011 : 11:16 a.m.

&quot;...Michigan legislators promoting a right-wing social agenda that flies in the face of what a majority of Michigan voters actually support...&quot;
Really? What was the outcome of the state constution vote on this topic again? Or is that not the majority you're speaking of? Oh, you must mean the A2 majority, who's ALWAYS right, regardless of what anyone/everyone else thinks

Linda Diane Feldt

Mon, Oct 31, 2011 : 10:38 a.m.

Thank you for beginning the process of putting human faces to those who would be devastated by this bill. Yes, it has already caused upset and even panic for those who would lose health care coverage. While this article focuses on the competitive loss, the message of abandonment and lack of care for those affected is heartbreaking.
This is a move to take health care away from children and people who would be married if possible in Michigan, and some who are married in other states more progressive than ours. Not just &quot;roommates and unmarried partners&quot; as quoted by Rep. Agema. If benefits need to be cut, it is unconscionable to single out families who are gay and lesbian. And again, recall that that includes children.
For some this is more than a job choice, it is life and death. And the affects of this hateful bill are wide, including staff who can't as easily trade jobs, sell homes, and go elsewhere. The partners and spouses (married but in a legal limbo in Michigan) of the support staff may have no other options. I have friends who would be left in crisis if this bill is enacted, and who are already experiencing fear, panic, bewilderment, and other emotions that are normal when your family and health is directly attacked.
The house support of this bill has already badly blemished our state's reputation, and even that will take years to recover from. A strong rejection at the senate level may help, as well as those of us who support equal access and support of all families speaking out strongly against all moves to marginalize and harm the families of our gay and lesbian friends and colleagues.
The losses associated with this bill will be far larger then the money saved. Lost workers will be potentially replaced by many families who are acceptable to the supporters of this bill (heterosexual with dependent children), also families uprooted, and even some needing the expensive social net of state services. Please join me in speaking out against this hateful

bedrog

Mon, Oct 31, 2011 : 11:33 a.m.

Excellent post Linda.

Linda Diane Feldt

Mon, Oct 31, 2011 : 10:45 a.m.

The last word of my comment was cut off - I am asking that you join me in speaking out against this hateful bill. And I would add that letting hate and the desire to discriminate determine the rules and laws of our state can only have devastating consequences. It already has.

Basic Bob

Mon, Oct 31, 2011 : 10:32 a.m.

"I question my decision to come to Michigan"
We all feel that way some time. A &quot;one-percent&quot; highly educated person has an opportunity to leave. If things are so good elsewhere, I would question why they would stay under the circumstances.
What happens to the unemployed or low wage workers who can't get insurance for their _children_ with cancer? Do they deserve less because they don't have a political voice screaming for inclusion?

David Paris

Mon, Oct 31, 2011 : 12:08 p.m.

&quot;What happens to the unemployed or low wage workers who can't get insurance for their _children_ with cancer? Do they deserve less because they don't have a political voice screaming for inclusion?&quot;
No... no one deserves less. That is why we want single payer health care. We all deserve health insurance no matter what our situation is, but it is funny how so many people would rather take a benefit away from Sector A, than give a benefit to Sector B, while claiming &quot;it's not fair&quot;.

Tom Todd

Mon, Oct 31, 2011 : 10:29 a.m.

We the People....

bedrog

Mon, Oct 31, 2011 : 12:39 p.m.

By your pithy comment do you mean to support the tax paying gay partners (who are certainly &quot;people&quot; ) or the bigoted fake constitutionalists ( aka teapartiers) who are against rights for gay fellow citizens??